This vainglorious administration is so self-absorbed that it refuses to keep secrets if it can in any way benefit politically from them regardless of the cost. Obama is so bent on preening he seems not to have any concern at all for those who actually make the sacrifices. First Joe Biden outs SEAL Team 6 as those who participated in the Bin Laden raid and then Leon Panetta outed the doctor who helped provide intelligence for the raid. That was catastrophic for the doctor.

First he and his wife were fired for engaging in a “fake” vaccination program.

In a notification issued in this regard, the health department said that Afridi’s services were terminated under the Efficiency and Disciplinary (E and D) Rules for being involved in anti-state activities, the Express Tribune reports.

Earlier, 15 lady health workers who were part of the alleged fake vaccination campaign, were were also sacked from their jobs.

It was reported earlier this month that Dr Afridi was dismissed from his post, along with four LHVs.

Earlier, Dr. Shakeel’s wife, Imrana Ghafoor was also removed from her post. She was the principal of the Government Girls Degree College in Darra Adam Khel.

Now he has been jailed for 33 years for treason:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A Pakistani surgeon recruited by the CIA to help find Osama bin Laden was on Wednesday sentenced to 33 years in prison for treason, officials said.

Shakil Afridi, who was sacked as a government doctor two months ago, was found guilty under the tribal justice system of Khyber district, part of Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal belt.

In addition to his jail sentence, he was fined 320,000 rupees ($3,500). The doctor had worked for years as a surgeon in lawless Khyber, part of the Taliban and al-Qaeda infested tribal belt.

Afridi was not present in the court and not given a chance to defend himself, officials said. Under the tribal system, he would not have had access to a lawyer.

“He has been sentenced for 33 years on treason charges and has been moved to Peshawar central jail after the verdict was announced by the local court,” said Mohammad Siddiq, spokesman for the administrative head of Khyber.

In January, U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed Afridi had worked for U.S. intelligence by collecting DNA to verify bin Laden’s presence and expressed concern about Pakistan’s treatment of him.

He was arrested shortly after U.S. troops killed the al-Qaeda leader on May 2, 2011 and in October a Pakistani commission recommended that he be tried for treason.

Golly, given this event who wouldn’t want to want to come to the aid of America? The left has not had word of complaint- not about this nor about the unprecedented access to classified material offered to filmmakers in the process of Obama idolatry.

Contrast that to the phony kerfuffle over Valerie Plame and the scorn wrongly heaped upon George Bush.

The term “disinformation” is derived from the old Soviet Union:

Disinformation is mostly commonly described as false information created by governments in wartime for military purposes and by totalitarian governments for political purposes in peacetime. Rumors, lies, and other forms of disinformation were made public by the Soviet Union to discredit the United States, the latter being the context in which the word is generally applied. The KGB coined the Russian word dezinformatsiya; it came into the English language as disinformation. The technique of disinformation goes back at least to 1918 with the end of World War I. Disinformation as a KGB weapon began in 1923 when I. S. Inshlikht, deputy chairman of the GPU, then the name of the KGB, proposed the establishment of a special disinformation office to conduct active intelligence operations.

Barack Obama is operating his own personal KGB with the express intent of spreading disinformation on private citizens in order to destroy them.

Kimberly Strassel’s article “Trolling for Dirt on the President’s List” describes the harassment and smearing of a Romney supporter and donor.

Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, “Keeping GOP Honest,” took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled “Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney’s donors,” the post accused the eight of being “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.” Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being “litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

Vandersloot vigorously denies the accusations but Barack Obama insisted on sliming him.

Mr. VanderSloot has said his attackers have misconstrued facts and made false allegations. In February he wrote a long reply, publicly stating that he has “many gay friends whom I love and respect” who should “have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual.” The Obama campaign’s response, in April, was to single out Mr. VanderSloot and repeat the slurs.

Obama’s KGB is hunting down Vandersloot’s children as well.

“There’s been a ton of electronic media… that have lodged all kind of innuendo in my direction, accused me of all kinds of bad things. People have called my children. They’ve been surfing their LinkedIn sites. They’ve been asking interviews of my kids.“

Vandersloot and his children are not the first victims. The Koch brothers found themselves targets of Obama’s pogrom.

In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers.
[...]
Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

For the response of the Koch brothers to this assault, go here.

Then something else in Stressel’s article caught my attention.

About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.

Divorce records. Hmm.

When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn’t want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had “no comment.” “It’s a legal thing,” he added.

Fusion dodged my calls, so I couldn’t ask who was paying it to troll through Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records. Mr. Simpson finally sent an email stating: “Frank VanderSloot is a figure of interest in the debate over civil rights for gay Americans. As his own record on gay issues amply demonstrates, he is a legitimate subject of public records research into his lengthy history of legal disputes.”

I have seen Obama’s KGB do this in the past. Obama KGB Commissar David Axelrod has been able to magically come into possession of the sealed divorce records of both former Obama opponents Blair Hull and Jack Ryan. The Chicago Tribune (where Axelrod used to work) then began publishing accusations based on information contained in those sealed records- first on Obama primary opponent Hull and then GOP opponent Jack Ryan.

At the intersection of all of these events is Commisar David Axelrod:

Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ”worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull.

Now Obama endeavors mightily to gain possession of Vandersloot’s divorce records no doubt with the singular desire to destroy his life and the lives of his children.

Obama’s former doctor is quoted as saying

“I think there is too much of the University of Chicago in him. By which I mean he’s academic, lacks passion and feeling, and doesn’t have the sense of humanity that I expected.”

He even suggests that Obama is “Messianic.”

I have opined that Obama is a sociopath and nothing disabuses me of that notion. These are the most scurrilous people ever to infect the White House.

Maybe Elizabeth Warren can get 1/32 of it (Yeah, I know- Cherokee, not Sioux) and Ward Churchill…well…nevermind:

South Dakota’s Black Hills, home to the granite faces carved into Mt. Rushmore, should be restored as Native American tribal lands, a United Nations official recently said.

James Anaya, a U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, completed a fact-finding mission on Friday that included meetings with a number of Native American tribal leaders as well as White House officials. His investigation led him to suggest that the United States take additional steps to repair the nation’s legacy of oppression against Native Americans.

Reuters:

[James Anaya] met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials.

“I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced,” Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva.

That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.

Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed. His findings will be included in a final report submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council. While not binding, the recommendations carry moral weight that can influence governments.

“It is clear that this history does not just blemish the past, but translates into present day disadvantage for indigenous peoples in the country,” Anaya said.

“There have still not been adequate measures of reconciliation to overcome the persistent legacies of the history of oppression, and that there is still much healing that needs to be done,” he said.

~~~

“Past uncontrolled and irresponsible extractive activities, including uranium mining in the Southwest, have resulted in the contamination of indigenous peoples’ water sources and other resources, and in numerous documented negative health effects among Native Americans,” he said.

He said indigenous peoples feel they have too little control over geographic regions considered sacred to them, like the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona and the Black Hills in South Dakota. Anaya suggested such lands should be returned to Native peoples.

“Securing the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands is of central importance to indigenous peoples’ socioeconomic development, self-determination, and cultural integrity,” Anaya said.

“Continued efforts to resolve, clarify, and strengthen the protection of indigenous lands, resources, and sacred sites should be made,” he added.

Mount Rushmore, a popular tourist attraction, is located in the Black Hills, which the Sioux tribe consider to be sacred and have territorial claims to based on an 1868 treaty. Shortly after that treaty was signed, gold was discovered in the region. U.S. Congress eventually passed a law taking over the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that the seizure of the land was illegal and ordered the government to pay compensation. But the Sioux rejected the money and has continued to demand the return of the now public lands.

Are Native Americans still being oppressed? Are they a separate people from the rest of America? At what point in history do we let go and move on? A generation? 100 years? 200 years? A millennium? Never? To always hold grudges and claim victimhood for one’s situation today due to what happened to one’s ancestors, generations removed? And what of those Americans of “oppressed ancestry” who are currently experiencing great prosperity in today’s America? Who have benefited because of the course America took- good and bad, just and unjust- in its formulation?

In the case of Japanese-Americans receiving compensation for internment, that I can understand and am more sympathetic to, because those directly affected are still around.

With upwards of 70% unemployment on two Sioux reservations in South Dakota, Hot Air points out:

The report goes on for paragraph after paragraph about proposed plans based on the concept of systemic racism against indigenous people, but it does also manage to touch on one issue which is very real.

Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.

The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country’s poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.

“You can see they’re in a somewhat precarious situation in terms of their basic existence and the stability of their communities given that precarious land tenure situation. It’s not like they have large fisheries as a resource base to sustain them. In basic economic terms it’s a very difficult situation. You have upwards of 70% unemployment on the reservation and all kinds of social ills accompanying that. Very tough conditions,” he said.

Conditions on many of the reservations are indeed horrible. There are some exceptions, of course, among some in the Northwest with ocean access and others with casinos, but many of the tribal lands are simply desolate pools of poverty. If there is anything to the questions being raised by the UN, though, it is likely to be found less in some sort of nebulous cure for any sort of endemic racism than in the technicalities of a court of law.

The United States has indeed made many treaties with Native Americans spanning three centuries. Some were honored, (at least in part) but many were either ignored or crafted in patently unfair ways.

Everyone’s ancestors (let aside the possibility of immediate family members) at some point in time and in history has suffered injustices and oppression at the hands of some invading tribe or army, pillaging, raping, conquering. What is the practical solution to righting the wrongs of the past? The U.S. government is still around but the people involved on both sides of the equation are long gone. When do you cut your losses and say, “Time to move on” and quit blaming your circumstances on what happened centuries ago?

Barack Obama’s re-election has adopted a new slogan: “Forward”

It has some really interesting historical predecessors:

Click here to view the embedded video.

via GP

And then there are these:

Under the Leadership of the Great Stalin — Forward to Communism!

Under Lenin’s Banners, Under Stalin’s Leadership, Forward to a New Prosperity of the Soviet Motherland, to the Complete Victory of Communism in Our Country!

Forward to the Victory of Communism!

Via WZ

And over at Free Republic was the reminder of these images:

And who could forget this?

Click here to view the embedded video.

All we need now is that “Civilian Defense Force” as powerful as the military.

Then we’ll take your guns

The collection agency for the Federal Reserve known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is working with legislators to gain control over the rights of Americans. Without the right to due process, the IRS can simply claim a citizen owes $50,000 dollars or more to their illegal operation. This accusation alone will give their agency the right to revoke American’s travel rights and even remove the right to own a firearm.

With the help of Representatives like Barbara Boxer of California, a bill rapidly working through Capitol Hill (passed through the Senate and is currently up for review in the House) will give the IRS power to:

Accuse Americans of delinquency of tax payment without due process
Revoke their passports and travel rights
Place the accused in a centralize database
Authorize the removal of their right to own a firearm

No formal charges are required. Simply the accusation from the IRS is sufficed to strip American citizens of their Constitutional rights.

All you need is the accusation that you are a subversive.

Obama employs the words favored by the Nazis and Stalin and the Communists. Coincidence?

I don’t think so.

Is someone trying to fundamentally change this country?

Click here to view the embedded video.

I think so.

FORWARD!

While our president crusades with an unrealistic plan to tax the rich to pay for his profligate spending and bring the country back to what now seems like a Capitalist pipe dream, the elusive pre-Obama economy. Obama Elites, who are almost always rich, but don’t seem to pay taxes or worry about them, agree with the old Marxist parable, “tax the rich to spread the wealth around,” at least, as long as no one dips into their private accounts. If Obama stays in power, their money is safe, that’s the way his system works. While the public frets over wether Obama is a Statist or a Marxist, he keeps trying to make the old failed Marxist principles work. Apparently, the Marxists of history didn’t understand how to run a Statist economy or so Obama must reason, to keep from being collectively diagnosed as a psychotic, by doing the same experiment repeatedly and expecting a different result.

Taxing the rich and the productive people of society, in order to give the money to non-productive members of society, is like beating your head against a wall to rid yourself of a headache. It may seem like a good idea to the naive and stupid, but eventually, your situation becomes worse or desperate. The wall maintains its integrity, but your head and your ability to reason is in an indirect proportion to the time spent beating your brains to a pulp.

Marx argued that the Socialists of the 19th Century continued to fail because they neglected to address the economic issues, and he was regarded as a brilliant thinker, his formula for the evolution of Socialism into Communism incorporated the concept of Wealth Redistribution. Obama incorporated Wealth Redistribution as a major portion of his election platform in 2008 and it has been an underlying principle of his economic policies. In the beginning, Marx was content to describe his theories in newspapers, but in 1848 he published, “The Communist Manifesto”; in 1867, he wrote the more notable book, “Das Kapital”. The brilliance of Marx has been the silent epitaph for over a hundred million, but Obama is not one to let the failures and the disasters of every experiment in Marxism and Statism deter his idealism.

The major problem with Marxism, a problem described by Orwell in his book, “1984″ and later illustrated so poignantly by Obama during what may charitably become known as America’s Malignant Presidency, is the problem of reallocation of wealth or the Redistribution of Wealth, since the creation of wealth in Marxism or Statism is extremely laborious and difficult.

Marx believed that the problem with the socialism of his day was that it failed to deal in a realistic manner with economic issues. He proposed that his new (Communist) economic system, which called for redistribution of wealth, was more equitable. But in time and with application, it became clear that this system fails as well; in part, because it requires people to be altruistic and to live like ants or for the community rather than to advance the concept of self. Unfortunately, working for the benefit of others over self is not in harmony with human nature. Marx advanced a secular solution to a spiritual problem. But by its very nature, a spiritual problem can be solved only on a spiritual level.

Wait, wait, Progressive Marxist sympathizers may be tempted to work themselves into a coronary, but let’s consider some basic facts. Increasing taxes will always dry up a percentage of an economy, because a finite amount of money evacuates the economy and the economy becomes less dynamic. If at a certain moment in time, 45% of the money of an economy is taxed, the economy is weakened by 45%. Nancy Pelosi has argued that the money isn’t lost because it is fed back through the economy in the form of welfare and food stamp programs. But this requires a caveat. Before the money was taxed out of the economy, wealth was being created, goods and services were provided, and the economy was healthy and dynamic. But when money is taken from the economy and given to non-productive people to spend, no wealth is being created. The economy becomes anemic with false values and a loss of 45% of the economy’s capacity for the creation of wealth.

In an imaginary economy of Dystopia, the United Socialist States has $20 dollars, but a wealthy man has the $20 dollars and has decided to sit on the entire amount, except for his personal living expenses, say $2 a year. The rest of the people of Dystopia will be falling over one another to get a few cents of that two dollars to be able to feed their families and repair the roof over their heads and be glad to get a portion of that small pittance of the national economy of Dystopia. The money is spent in desperation by each citizen of Dystopia, who feels lucky to earn some of the limited money supply. They feed their families and provide whatever comforts they can afford with their share of the limited money supply as it is spent solely on the basics required for subsistence.

These few pennies of wealth are spent over and over throughout the economy. This economy is said to possess a limited money supply. However, if the wealthy person see the opportunity to “Create wealth” by investing a portion of his capital in a business or the manufacture of a product, the capacity of the money supply of Dystopia will begin to increase exponentially.

The investment that our imaginary capitalist has seen is in the form of ceramic tiles for the roofs of the homes of Dystopia’s citizens. It will take $14 of wealth to manufacture the roofing tiles, but since there is demand for this inexpensive product that can be produced and sold to turn a profit, the enterprise seems promising. Our theoretical capitalist thinks there is an opportunity to increase his fortune and create wealth within the community. The wealth created is not limited to the bank account of the capitalist; the actual wealth is recorded in the higher standard of living provided by the jobs and the spinoff industries that spring up to service the roofing industries.

It is the $14 dollars that invigorated the economy; once people had income beyond substance levels, they had the option of being a Hedonist and spending money on indulgences, sitting on money like the capitalist did before he saw opportunity, or trying to create wealth by investing in a business or creating another product. A group of human beings will provide examples of all three, but more importantly, the economy is invigorated as the $14 turns over almost every business day. People are seeing their standard of living improve weekly and the economy is not only healthy, it is strong. People have faith in the future and they are not afraid to take economic risks.

Obama has created the antithesis of a healthy economy. The money supply is dwindling. People who can invest have little confidence in the future and the money supply is turning over in a manner much closer to early Dystopia when the rich man sat on his assets rather than risk his money in a “Down” economy.

But Obama has the answer, he will tax the rich and spread the wealth around; unfortunately, the wealthy producers see the economic climate and close up their wealth and innovative creativity like a turtle hiding in his shell.

First Lady Obama presumes that her husband’s Supreme Court Nominees will protect political rights not enumerated in the Constitution. She made this remarkable claim at Democrat fundraisers by stressing that Sotomayo and Kagan are indeed political appointees and can be counted on to protect the right to “Love whomever we choose” and “the right privacy”. This mysterious “Privacy” right is presumably a reference to Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, but these nebulous terms are often invoked to mean anything Democrat strategists want them to mean at a later date.

In a typical Michelle Obama statement, her bathos logic maintained its chaotic and barely decipherable cross word puzzle style:

“Let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court.

But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come–on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here.”

Of course, the appointment of the ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginzberg was a Clinton appointment and she has since claimed the Constitution to be a flawed document and that we need to look at other countries for laws to guide our judicial process.

Now with the latest political appointments being bragged about as stooges for the Obama regime and the refusal of Kagan to recuse herself from the hearing of the Individual Mandate Clause of Obama Care, the seriousness of the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are being viewed with skepticism by people wanting to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.

Ms Obama’s speech was not a collection of off the cuff and extemporaneous remarks, she gave the same speech again at another fundraiser in Detroit. She obviously has sound reasons to believe her decidedly un-American speech claims.

We are now left wondering what these Progressive “Plants” are programed to achieve with their “Love who you choose” clause and what other Progressive objectives they are programmed to pursue or do they await directions from the White House. Does this include children, animals, and multiple partners or can we expect an element of reasonable restraint from political operatives within the Supreme Court.
Michelle seems confident that these justices are in her husband’s pocket.

Michelle has reassured us that her husband’s political operatives believe we should be able to speak freely and worship openly, but then again, maybe political stooges may see that only certain speech and worship are considered to be within the proscribed politically correct boundaries and everything else should be considered offensive. Since the question is bound to arise, how ideologically programmed are these Progressive Stooges in the Supreme Court.

Should women from the Left take pride in the fact that they have a victory with mandated condoms and birth control for college students; therefore, they can play humpy rumpy with even less responsible men and forget that their sisters in many parts of the world are still struggling against mutilation, slavery, forced marriage, childhood marriage, state condoned sexual abuse, and religious sponsored murder. Perhaps these issues are a little too close to a real struggle as well as incongruent and counter productive to the president’s true ideological beliefs, since most of those crimes against routinely happen in the Muslim World and are much more difficult to deal with than the concept of free condoms for college women with healthy libidos.

We should also remember that Ginzberg told the Egyptians trying to write a new Constitution for their new country to forget using the US Constitution as a template; consequently, they are now debating how many hours after a wife dies is a man allowed to have sex with the corpse of his deceased wife. Yes, the Feminist movement should be proud of its progress and its stooges.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The real Vladimir Ilyich Obama stands up

As part of his fantasy “deficit reduction” plan, Barack Obama proposed a number of new taxes. One of them was the so-called “Buffett Rule.” When it was initially proposed, it was part of the plan to reduce the deficit.

‘Buffett rule’

President Obama

“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” he said. “It’s hard to argue against that.”

Mr Obama suggested a “Buffett rule”, which would see Americans who earn more than $1m pay the same rate of tax as those who earn less.

The proposal refers to billionaire financier Warren Buffett, who has complained that he and his wealthy peers pay relatively less tax than the people who work for them.

Many high-income Americans benefit from tax loopholes that see earnings on investment taxed at lower rates than wages.

On Sunday Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee and a proponent of deep cuts and no tax rises, described Mr Obama’s plans as “class warfare”.

The president referenced Mr Ryan’s criticism on Monday, justified his tax-and-cut package by saying simply: “It’s not class warfare, it’s math.”

So how much impact would the Buffett rule have on either the debt or the deficit? The White House refused to say.

But for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.

“I’m not going to give you a schedule of how broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the Wednesday briefing. “The president simply believes that as a matter of principle that unfairness ought to be changed.”

Republican lawmakers — noting the absence of real numbers — attacked the plan as a political charade, an attempt to score points in the November election instead of a serious policy to reduce federal debt. One outside analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation indicates the rule would generate another $36.7 billion a year in revenue — far from enough to make a serious dent in a national debt of $15 trillion.

It’s estimated that the “Buffett Rule” would bet around $4 billion per year.

A bill designed to enact President Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.

That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama’s budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.

Obama’s proposed deficits run over a trillion dollars for as long as anyone can imagine.

Since the Buffett rule would have essentially no impact on the debt or the deficit, Obama has shifted tactics. It’s no longer about deficit reduction- now it’s all about fairness.

The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”

So it’s not the math? It’s fairness? OK, then.

“Fairness” was Vladimir Lenin’s central campaign theme- equality of outcome. It’s what Communism is all about.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the political structure of the Soviet Union (1917–1989) tried to emphasize equality of outcome as a primary goal.

Via Wikipedia

It also led right to Josef Stalin. So how is $4 billion a year going to create “fairness”? How is it going to give everyone a “fair shot”? How does that actually work? Will the yearly $4 billion go into the “fair shot pool”? And once that doesn’t do anything, will Obama be back asking for a 90% tax so everyone can have more “fair shots”? Is the ultimate goal control of and business and everyone’s salaries so the Obamitburo can determine what’s “fair” for all of us?

The fly in the ointment? Life isn’t fair.

If life was fair, I’d have Barack Obama’s wealth. If life was fair, we could all be astronauts. If life was fair, my kids wouldn’t have lost soccer games 8-1. If life was fair, we’d all get into Harvard Law.

It can be argued that it’s a terribly unfair thing for someone to lose at the Master’s. Why is there a “champion” of the NBA each year? That’s not “fair” to the other teams. Why play the Superbowl? It’s not fair that one team has to lose. It’s even more unfair to the teams that did not make it. Why not just have every tennis match and baseball game end in a tie! That’s fair!

But then, what’s the point of playing? What’s the point of doing anything if the outcome is the same if you try as if you didn’t try?

It’s also not “fair” for only half the country to pay Federal taxes. As someone once said, we all ought to have some “skin in the game.” We all ought to pay the same tax rate.

That’s fair.

The Marxist genie is out of the bottle. Neal Boortz compared Obama’s words to those of Marx:

“Responsibility from all” = “From each according to their ability.”

“Fairness for all” = “To each according to their needs.”

Watch some future democrats’ attitudes toward redistributing their GPA

Click here to view the embedded video.

Obama is no longer about recovery or growth. He’s all about fairness.

The ultimate result of a Obama’s fairness vision would see equal outcome for everything. No matter how hard you work, no matter the risk you take, you earn the same amount of money. No matter how hard you study you earn the same grades. Everyone owns the same house, the same car.

The good part is that everyone gets to be a doctor, lawyer or airline pilot. Without question, though, some democrats would be more equal than other democrats. That’s how it went in mother Russia too.

Somewhere, Vladimir Lenin is giddy with glee.

By now, the literate world is well aware of CNN’s news anchor, Soledad O’Brien’s public humiliation during her interview with Breitbart’s Pollak. If there was ever a doubt in the mind of anyone but the most dedicated Socialist sycophants of the Main Stream Media being less than an unofficial propaganda bureau for the president, this should have been the deciding factor.

CNN is now in full damage control mode, by trying to cast Derrick Bell, one of America’s foremost racists and former mentor to our president as a great crusader for civil rights in the spirit of Martin Luther King; unfortunately, the truth and facts are ugly and one of our president’s early friends and mentors is a vicious and vile racist who used his dubious academic credentials and a prolific effort of obfuscation to disguise stark racism as an analytical theory on race. In an effort to “Save Face” in the oriental tradition, a writer from CNN, with considerably more ability than O’Brien, has written a 1500 word essay to vindicate O’Brien and to help lessen the public’s impression of CNN and O’Brien being in the tank or should we say cess pool with Obama and willing to do or say anything to promote the Obama agenda. However, it is this essay and its revisionist stance on recent history, that provides the proof of CNN’s complicity with the Obama agenda.

Soledad committed her first error by not admitting that she was a fan of Bell or perhaps her first mistake was not admitting to CNN that although she had read Bell’s books, her comprehension was marginal.

There is nothing wrong with being a sycophantic fan of a writer, but the problem becomes apparent when the fan is passed off as an objective analyst; unfortunately, for Soledad, she was humiliated and became a laughingstock, along with her employer, the Obama Propaganda Bureau, CNN.

CNN has now decided to do battle with the forces that have no reservations against calling the racist Derrick Bell, a racist, by rewriting or blunting the message of the racist mentor of President Obama and trying once again to repackage the vile message of racism under a pretense of scholarly circumlocution.

The story of our president and the endemic racism of his associates is ongoing with many surprises.

In November of 1985, the Harvard Law Review published a seminal article of Critical Race Theory, written by Derrick Bell, and edited by a student, Elena Kagan. The same article was cited by Professor Charles Ogletree and by President Obama as support for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The article defines the Constitution as a form of “original sin”. A similar view has been expressed by President Obama in referring to the flaws of the Constitution. Most of the article is fiction and meant as a parable. Unfortunately, the parables of a racist are now becoming institutionalized within our legal system.

From Joel Pollak, Editor in Chief Breitbart.com

“It carries over into his governance because his Justice Department won’t treat black civil rights violators the same way it treats white civil rights violators, there’s a racial pattern in which justice is enforced and it gives us a sense of how Barack Obama thinks about these issues.”

From the pen of Bell as edited by Kagan and used as grounds for her nomination to the Supreme Court:

At the nation’s beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction. The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all. And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery….

The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy — that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks’ failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.

The myths that today and throughout history have nurtured the original constitutional contradiction and thus guided racial policy are manifold, operating like dreams below the level of language and conscious thought. Much of what is called the law of civil rights — an inexact euphemism for racial law — has a mythological or fairy-tale quality that is based, like the early fairy tales, less on visions of gaiety and light than on an ever-present threat of disaster. We are as likely to deny as to concede these myths, and we may well deny some and admit others. They are not single stories or strands. Rather, they operate in a rich texture that constantly changes, concealing content while elaborating their misleading meanings.

This is supposedly the nonfiction part that precedes the fictional writing that is expressed in parables. Although, Bell’s writing is non-sensical, the main precept is that the framers of the Constitution were White and since they were White, it was impossible for them not to write racism into the Constitution. Racism that gives preferential treatment to Whites and assures Blacks of failure.

Actually, is a call for a form of Marxism or Communism that is being played carefully by the left. Essentially the technique appeals to Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and the poor who feel alienated. Critical Race Theory is the vehicle designed to catch the imagination of the disadvantaged, the poor, and society’s alienated and promise them Redistribution of Wealth: of course, the ultra wealthy Liberals and students see themselves as the caretakers of the masses and therefore able to function as Elites within this Utopian Society promised by the Marxists.

Within this theory of Bell, that is lauded by Obama, it is impossible for Whites to atone for their sins of the past. Their sins are a part of their DNA and represent a malignancy within our Constitution and until the system is destroyed and White Culture is eradicated, the cancer will always be there; hence, the premise of Marx is just tweaked a bit to produce this theory of Critical Race Hatred our president holds in such high regard.

When recognized, these myths often take the form of the missing link between the desire for some goal of racial justice and its realization. Black civil rights lawyers propound the myth that this case or that court may provide the long-sought solution to racial division. They fantasize and strategize about hazy future events that may bring us a long-envisioned racial equality. White people cling to the belief that racial justice may be realized without any loss of their privileged position. Even at this late date, some find new comfort in the old saw that “these things” — meaning an end to racial discrimination — “take time.” The psychological motivations behind the myths perpetrated by people of both races can be sufficiently complex to engender book-length explanations by psychiatrists. Racial stereotypes are also part of this suffocating web of myth that forms the rationale of inaction, but it is not necessary to catalogue here the myriad stereotypes about black people that have served since the days of slavery to ease the consciences of the thoughtful and buoy the egos of the ignorant.

The contemporary myths that confuse and inhibit current efforts to achieve racial justice have informed all of our racial history. Myth alone, not history, supports the statements of those who claim that the slavery contradiction was finally resolved by a bloody civil war. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended to serve the interests of the Union, not the blacks, a fact that Lincoln himself admitted. The Civil War amendments, while more vague in language and ambiguous in intent, actually furthered the goals of northern industry and politics far better and longer than they served to protect even the most basic rights of the freedmen. The meager promises of physical protection contained in the civil rights statutes adopted in the post-Civil War period were never effectively honored. Hardly a decade later, the political compromise settling the disputed Hayes-Tilden election once again left the freedmen to the reality of life with their former masters. Finally, the much-discussed “40 acres and a mule,” hardly extravagant reparations for an enslaved people who literally built the nation, never got beyond the discussion stage.

It is time to “Out” the Marxist influence within the Democrat Party, for these people are no longer hiding their core beliefs. If you refuse to accept the obvious, you are a part of the disease.

In an interview with NPR, in 2001, President Obama gave his views straight from Critical Race Theory:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Richard Delgado (A founder of CRT) and Jean Stefanic wrote a primer on Critical Race Theory and stressed these two basic principles:

1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;
2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

In their context, these two principles mean that the 14th Amendment with its equal treatment under the law, is unjust because it doesn’t deal with the concept of White Supremacy; therefore to compensate for the corrupt system the system must be made unequal. Hence Obama and Holder’s reasons for not prosecuting the Black Panthers in a case that was already won becomes apparent.

The CRT loyalists also maintain that Brown versus Board of Education was a ploy to keep the Soviet Union from using the White supremacy as a propaganda weapon against the United States. Again the loyalists show their support for the Marxist Party Line.

Although, the Critical Race Theory attacks classical Liberal theory, the Left is willing to overlook the contradictions and the inherent damage it causes to race relations, the laws of the land, and the Constitution, because it uses Marxism in an effective manner to play to the groups they want to represent.

Jeffrey Pyle writes of the dangers in the Boston College Law Review:

Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis in principles, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled government, and they have lost patience with false promises.

The Obama Administration is Critical Race Theory, and it is not just the junction of law, race, and politics as Ms O’Brien has so inelegantly tried to explain. Reverse Racism is not a cure for racism; especially, racism that exists in the imagination of race pimps who have nothing without racism.

Thanks to the Obama Administration, racism has taken root deep within our federal government and our courts; it will take decades to scrub this ugly stain from our country if we begin today and if it is even possible with endemic racism so deeply entrenched within our Supreme Court.

Epilogue: Early in my tenure as an amateur blogger at FA, I received several emails from authors who unknowingly served as my unofficial mentors. They asked that I tone down my rhetoric and refrain from calling Obama a Marxist; at least until, the public was ready to accept the fact. Never again will I rein in my keyboard for the delicate sensitivities of our readers or other writers. The country is in deep manure and I refuse to drown in it gracefully. Fire me or railroad me out of here, but I will not go down the path of Marxism quietly and without a fight. I will pull no more punches, not for Obama’s brown hide or anyone else’s.

The man in the photo up above is laughing his ass off at us and he should be, for the Communists could never mount a serious threat against our country, except through White guilt over past racism. Obama has the ball and he is a damned good runner and liar, but he might just get sacked in a few months.

Barack Obama has made it easy. As they say at Nike

Barack Obama has hinted at becoming a dictator

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

He thinks he has an obligation to take action without Congress

then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them.

It’s official. We now have a dictator.

President Obama granted 10 states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee) waivers from the federal government’s No Child Left Behind law today. The action will temporarily prevent schools in each states from suffering federal sanctions for not meeting reading and math standards by 2014.

Obama’s waivers from NCLB have made things worse for states:

These are not simply waivers to provide relief to states from the onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind. These are conditions-based waivers, and the strings attached to this “relief” further tether states to Washington.
…
One of the most concerning conditions attached to the waivers is a requirement that states adopt common standards and tests or have their state university approve their standards. None of the waiver-approved states opted for the latter. The administration’s various carrots and sticks ($4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants and potential Title I dollars) had already pushed them to begin implementing the Common Core national standards and tests.

When national organizations and the Department of Education dictate standards and tests, they effectively control what can—and can’t–be taught in local schools. The degree to which these critical decisions are about to be centralized and nationalized is unprecedented in America.

But that’s not the worst of it.

Obama has no Constitutional authority to grant waivers to established Federal law- a law which has no provisions for waivers.

Even worse, nothing in federal law grants Obama the power to issue these conditional waivers. He is unilaterally rewriting federal education policy through selective enforcement. The American Enterprise Institute’s Frederick Hess tells the Christian Science Monitor: “NCLB, for all its flaws, was crafted by the US Congress … [but] these waivers impose a a raft of new federal requirements that were never endorsed by the legislative branch.

And here’s how a Republican President can undo Obama entirely:

“Once this administration opens this door, it’s hard to imagine future administrations not building on this precedent.”

A Republican President can grant the entire country a universal waiver from Obamacare. A Republican President can grant everyone in the US a waiver from the EPA. A Republican President can choose not to enforce anything Obama has done. Federal law will mean nothing. Congress itself becomes irrelevant. Obama’s precedent would allow a President to grant waivers to the Civil Rights Act (Come to think of it, Obama already has done that).

Obama himself described this policy

As he continued, Obama conceded that “we’ve got laws on the books that have to be upheld.” But he quickly added there are different ways to uphold the laws on the books. “You know as well as anyone that…how we enforce those laws is also important,” Obama said. Last month, the administration made a major, unilateral change in immigration law enforcement when it announced that the government will not initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants unless they have committed serious crimes. To critics, Obama had indeed worked his way around Congress.

It is what I believe is the basis for Obama nurturing massive election fraud and then choosing not to investigate it.

I fully expect no end to election chicanery on the part of the ACORN and the left, whether it involves “finding” lost votes as in Minnesota, printing out enough democrat ballots to guarantee a victory, forging signatures, or forging more signatures. I also expect that Holder would dismiss out of hand all claims beneficial to Obama and democrats and pursue only those in which the outcomes favored Republicans.

Ultimately the job of the Attorney General of the United States is protect the law from abuse but it is painfully clear that Eric Holder was appointed to protect abuse from the law.

There is a problem with this policy. It rips apart the fabric of the United States. The President’s duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and uphold the laws of the nation, not pick and choose which laws he wants to ignore.

Someone has to challenge Obama’s action.

Soon.

This is big. Huge. Gigantic. A firestorm.

And Republicans would be idiots for not seizing upon it.

Barack Obama has made the biggest blunder of his political life.

The president’s health-care regulation expanding access to birth control, including abortion pills, impinges on churches that oppose abortion, especially Catholic ones, by narrowly defining their religious activity to teaching only. Government must be wary of determining where the works of faith end.

Reaction came quickly:

Obama administration faces backlash over rule ordering birth control coverage

President Obama’s decision to force employers, including religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for contraception is becoming a big problem for his reelection campaign.

GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney launched a petition on Monday against the mandate, arguing it was an attack by Obama on “religious liberty.”

Conservatives, including Catholics such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), are attacking the administration for the decision. And now, nine months before the presidential election, the backlash is growing even among Obama supporters, who say the move was politically tone-deaf.

White House defends contraception rules as criticisms mount

U.S. Catholic bishops have slammed the Obama administration for a regulation finalized on January 20 that would require health insurance to include birth control and other preventative health services for women. The leaders contend that the policy infringes on religious liberty because the Church does not condone birth control of any kind.

Over the weekend, Catholic clergy across the country called for congregations to protest the rule and pressure Obama to back down.

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement last month.

Jim Towey, president of Ave Maria University in Florida, who also served in the administration of President George W. Bush, said Tuesday he would fight the provision using “all lawful means at our disposal.”

“Our non-Catholic employees and students understand fully that the University must adhere to Catholic teaching and they do not expect us to provide such services,” he said in a statement.

The White House sensed the rising storm:

Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth-control rule

The White House struggled Wednesday to contain the growing uproar over its birth-control mandate, with Democrats peeling off one by one in what has become an increasingly divisive election-year controversy.

Pressure to roll back the new contraception policy mounted quickly as the day wore on, driven by divisions among Democrats, mixed messages from President Obama’s advisers and a constant drumbeat from the GOP.

“It’s becoming a thorny problem for the White House and it appears to only be getting worse,” said one Democratic strategist. “The politically astute move would be to modify this thing, and quick.”

Asked if the administration should shift course, a former senior administration official said, “I don’t see how they couldn’t. It’s pretty bad.”

Leon Panetta was incredulous

“What are we doing here?” asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, stepping outside his wheelhouse to ask about a rising storm involving the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. “What’s the point?”

It was the Fall of 2011 and Panetta had read about a proposed Obama administration rule that would require employers – excluding houses of worship but including religious organizations such as charities, hospitals, and schools – to offer health insurance that fully covered contraception.

Panetta – a Catholic, former U.S. Representative, and White House chief of staff – didn’t quite understand why the Obama administration would be stepping into this conflict.

Panetta’s fears have to a degree been realized as White House officials now find themselves taking heat on a policy debate about conscience and religious liberty; the Obama administration is working to find a way to allow religious organizations to not pay for services they find morally objectionable, while also ensuring that, say, the women nurses and doctors who work at Catholic hospitals have full access to birth control. Some officials are discussing a way to introduce something like the law in Hawaii, where religious organizations don’t have to pay for employee insurance that covers contraception, but they do have to inform employees how they can get it on their own.

Obama then dug his heels in

President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

That may prove to be a precious gift for Republicans.

Obama is losing democrats

A handful of Senate Democrats have split with President Obama’s controversial birth-control mandate and slammed the administration’s requirement that church-affiliated employers cover contraceptives.

The five Democrats in the Senate expressing concern about some parts of the administration’s policy include, most recently, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, who have spoken publicly about their unhappiness with the mandate.

“This was a bone-headed decision by HHS,” Sen. Ben Nelson said of the new Health and Human Services mandates, according to the Nebraska Radio Network.

Nelson agreed with state Attorney General Job Bruning’s decision to file a legal challenge to the mandate.

Florida’s Nelson has also raised concerns. “My position is that church-affiliated organizations should be exempt, not just churches,” Nelson told the Tampa Bay Times Buzz Blog, adding that he has called the White House to express his concerns.

“It’s a matter of religious freedom,” Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin told ABC News.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan says he was betrayed:

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan says President Barack Obama hasn’t kept his promise, when it comes to the new White House policy on contraception.

Sources told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that Archbishop Dolan feels betrayed after his meeting with the president on the issue late last year.

A Catholic group in Alabama filed the first lawsuit against the Obama administration’s new birth control regulations as the controversy got even more heated Thursday.

The president ducked questions about the contraception controversy that is bedeviling his administration. The reason may be the latest attack from Dolan, who, sources told CBS 2, feels he was stabbed in the back by the president after the two met to discuss the issue.

“He was worried about being at odds with the Church, especially when it came to health care and education and charitable outreach,” Dolan told Kramer.

That’s called “willing suspension of disbelief.”

John Boehner cried:

“The federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries. This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand.”

As usual, too tepid and lacking heart.

But Marco Rubio got it right

Click here to view the embedded video.

The heat was getting so great that David Axelrod jumped in

David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser for the Obama reelection campaign, signaled Tuesday that the Obama administration may be open to a compromise on a new rule that requires many religious employers to provide contraception to their employees.

“I’m less concerned about the messaging of this than to find a resolution that makes sense,” said Axelrod on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

But the best news for Republicans? Joe Biden says he can fix it.

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he is “determined” to find a solution to the controversial birth control issue and that the administration is making “a significant attempt to work this out.”

Biden, who is Catholic, broke his silence on the Obama administration’s new contraception rule and said he is “determined to see that this gets worked out and I believe we can work it out.”

Let us not err as to what transpired here. This is a classic redistributionist action- make someone else pay for something Obama wants.

But it is also makes very clear Obama’s contempt for the Catholic Church. While Obama bows endlessly to Islamic leaders he has no qualms about trashing Catholicism. A so-called compromise has been announced. Drudge called it “caving” but it’s not caving at all. Obama has simply re-framed the debate to make people think it is something other than what it is. Someone else will pay for what Obama wants to give away and it will not be acceptable to the Catholic Church.

The episode is very important from a symbolic perspective. It makes clear what a lame duck Barack Obama would do to the country. Obama is already running roughshod over the Constitution. A second term would be a horror show.

UPDATE: Obama has offered a what some call a “compromise” but in reality is anything but a compromise. What Obama is basically proposing is that religious organizations simply lie.

Under the new policy, religious employers that don’t want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.

Obama’s plan allows those providing insurance to say that aren’t actually providing contraception but the insurers themselves are. See how easy that was?

This has not gone over well:

Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration’s proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers’ health plans.

Over at Think Progress they believe that contraception is a critical to the fight against global warming:

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women.

Who knew?