Barack Obama: On the eighth day, God said “raise taxes”
President Barack Obama has been taking lumps from Republicans for years over his support for Wall Street and health care reform, but today at the National Prayer Breakfast he claimed support from on high to defend two of his most controversial legislative achievements.
“And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.'”
Sure you do.
“I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato,” Obama added.
If nothing else works, let’s try guilt:
“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,'” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing.
Three years into Obama’s Presidency we learn that we didn’t just elect a President, we elected an evangelical. Well, that does explain the “pitchforks” thing.
So how do you like him now?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlLqBIk4kiQ[/youtube]
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Hey … You didn’t dress Obama ‘Muzzlim’. You ‘cross’ dressed him. Doesn’t this violate the right wing loonie mis-caricaturization rule … ?
Snerd
I have a question for any liberal/progressive who might see this;
First, though, I will say that it doesn’t matter if Obama is right or wrong on what he has said. That is another argument/debate entirely that I will not get into right now.
So, the question; For all the backlash against GOP Presidential nominees, and this goes back to pre-Reagan years, about “Evangelicals” or policians who are heavily influenced by their religion, and that liberal/progressives seem to generally feel that faith should be kept out of government entirely, then how is Obama’s recent sermons on God, Jesus and government benevolence any different?
I’ll wait patiently for your answer.
Obama seems to be playing at keeping the tax codes as they are while rich folks may pay EXTRA if the wish to do so.
Hey, news flash.
This has been the case for years!
People can all overpay if they wish.
I wonder if his latest tax return will show him and Michelle have willingly overpaid so as to set an example.
Perhaps he forgot that part of Jesus’ life.
Jesus set the example.
If Obama wants to usurp Jesus place he needs to be a setter of his new examples.
Somehow, I’m betting Obama won’t follow through.
I think you’re missing the most obvious set up, Nan. This is to capitalize on Romney’s villainy… when he stated in the Florida debates that he would never pay a penny more in taxes than owed, and believed that the nation didn’t want a POTUS who *would* pay more taxes than he owed.
I knew that dumb statement would come back to haunt him.
I suspect that this year, Obama will further capitalize on that very thing, and advertise an IRS gift in his 2011 taxes, to cast himself as the moral example of the responsible wealthy, and further castigate the greedy and selfish Romney. The joke of a GOP “conservative” has provided an aircraft carrier’ful of campaign ammo for Obama already. He’s toast in the fall.
But hey… all the party faithful will feel comfortable that they, once again, believed polls about electability, and threw their principles aside for a presumed “win”. pfft.
@johngalt:
Yes … quite the point there Johngall.
After all, in that talk, isn’t Obama showing he’s re-designing a whole campaign around a theocratic premise that ‘religious freedom’ was the right to jam the exclusive practice of one religion down everybody’s throat? You know, ‘re-(R)ighting’ the history of the separation of church and state so it’s, separation of church and ch(R)istian state? And Plymouth Rock being ‘freedom from religious persecution’, as long as y’all are practicing the (R)ight (R)eligion ….?
You see hypocrisy Johngall, but that’s because y’all are applying Bag(R) conceptual structure to Obama. In Bag(R), black or white conceptual structure, if’n you’re not mono-dimensional, ‘homo’-geneous and pure, then you’re on the ‘other’ side. Bag(R) think: ‘Obama is for the separation of church and state, but professes Christian values … Hypocrisy …. utter HYPOCRISY !!!’
Conversely, Obama is demonstrating that one can practice the separation of church and state as a government employee, as leader of ALL of the people of the USA, while on the other hand, still be personally guided by Christian teachings. He can believe it is morally good to help your fellow man, but make the argument based on economic factors. (BTW, he also demonstrated his theology is a little closer to the ‘original intent’ of them Christian teaching than, ‘God wants you to be rich and therefore the poor is evil’.)
In short Johngall, Obama is able to do nuance, multitask and still be consistent all at the same time and chew gum, however this sort of capacity appears as hypocrisy in Bag(R)ville …
You did ask Johngall …
Snerd
@Nan G:
You’ve mis-caricatured Obama. He doesn’t want to be Gawd, in your image, NanG …
Snerd
Isn’t it wonderful how these lefties excoriate Christians and all we stand for, until they need a bible quote to explain their state-sponsored theft?
Here is something else to think about;
With higher taxation, people have less available take-home income to spend on their living needs, savings, wants, and, of course, charitable giving. The liberal/progressive mindset would have us believe that government knows best how to distribute funds to “charities”, thus, any loss in take-home income would be offset by the government’s benevolence. In reality, simple charitable giving in one’s community typically ends up with those funds, and a higher percentage of them, going to a communities own needs. When the government is in the process of “charitable giving”, the funds will go to many different places, and many of those being ones that individuals might not want to “donate” to, as well as funds going to feed political cronyism.
@johngalt:
“When the government is in the process of “charitable giving”, the funds will go to many different places, and many of those being ones that individuals might not want to “donate” to, as well as funds going to feed political cronyism.”
Nice c(R)ony giving argument …. !
Snerd
@Silverfiddle:
We just exco(R)iate ‘Old Testament ch(R)istians’, Silverfiddle ….
Snerd
@johngalt:
Your (R) guy, (R)omney is making the opposite argument:
* As a super (R)ich person, he doesn’t care about the poor
* Because the poor have the Social Safety Net to protect them …
Boy, y’all are sure seem confused over there on the (R) side ….
Snerd
Well, this morning at church, there was a call to all patriots that Obama and the federal government was taking away religious freedoms by forcing the Catholic employers to carry sterilization, birth control and the day after pill in their health insurance. It created quite a stir with many no Catholics.
Michael Malkin’s recent column “Then They Came for the Catholics” http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/31/first-they-came-for-the-catholics/ showed the comparison with this administration’s effort to gradually reduce our freedoms in a manner similar to a mad Austrian and most other big government rulers. Saddam did something similar to consolidate his power.
It is quite easy to see that the chameleon changes color to mimic the environment until he captures the unwitting prey. How do you all like being prey?
@Snerd Gronk:
I don’t believe your answer actually addressed my question, Snerd. My question had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Obama is right or wrong. The question addressed the hypocrisy of the liberal/progressives, and although you did mention that, you didn’t address WHY that particular hypocrisy is acceptable.
And, the name I chose is johngalt, with a “t”. Your mocking is not necessary for straight, honest debate or discussion.
@Silverfiddle, #6:
I recall a clear admonition to those who place too much importance on wealth. I remember an unambiguous statement concerning how we should respond to the poor. I also remember something about rendering unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. Of course, I attended one of those left wing Episcopalian high schools where we had a theology class and tried to determine how such words related to human behavior in the real world.
Contrary to popular belief, the right doesn’t own Christianity or Jesus. I wouldn’t be so sure that the latter day GOP has his endorsement.
@Snerd Gronk:
It seems that you missed my point entirely. In simple terms, a private individual’s charitable giving tends to be geared towards that which the private individual values most. As in, their church, their community, certain illness charities with a personal connection, etc.
The government, however, will take my funds and benevolently give them to places I’d rather not see those funds go to. Things such as government funded abortions, the NEA, and others.
The simple point is that I think that I know better where the money I wish to give charitably can go to help those around me. Would you rather have the government do your thinking for you?
@Greg:
Strawman argument, nobody claims that, it’s utterly irrelevant anyway. Conservatives are about leaving religion alone, like the Constitution specifies. It would be fair to say that certain branches of Christianity tend to vote Republican, just like some tend to vote Democrat, like say Episcopalians.
Obama, though openly hostile to traditional religion, though insisting that Catholics act against their faith, is the one claiming ownership. His freakish liberation theology church in Chicago is a fake-Christian social club and money making scheme. He now invokes Christianity to justify his expansion of government power and he means not one word of it. I’m not religious and his hypocrisy sickens me. Basically he’s saying that Jesus was a Democrat.
It’s part of a larger calculated push by left wing Democrats to scam the public for the elections. If I were in front of the Pope I would ask him why he doesn’t excommunicate Nancy Pelosi.
The Democrat program for the 2012 elections is to co-opt and claim ownership of every possible conservative characteristic. Smaller government, cut the deficit, rah rah private sector growth, let’s stop all this insane government regulation, basically running directly against their own record. It’s cynical madness but it’s their plan. They stand over the corpses of our economy and our liberty holding a bloody knife and swearing (to God) that they’ll find the real killer.
The MSM is on their side, useful idiots like Greg are on their side, a voting public with a short attention span works in their favor — with our weak establishment RINO candidate, then Obama, Captain Wonderful the jug-eared messiah, may just get re-elected.
@Greg:
Good start, Greg.
Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s.
He added, to him (Caesar) who calls for the tax, you pay that tax.
(Jesus used the example of the head tax – the tax for existing. It cost a denarius. He said pay the denarius, not less, not more.)
He also moved a tax collector (Zacharrius) give back all of the OVERPAYMENTS (times four) that he had collected before he allowed that man to become one of his followers.
Obama would encourage people to give MORE to Caesar than he demands AND he wants tax collectors to take more than the law says they should.
Again, I don’t have a problem with the former. Why shouldn’t any individual be able to give their earnings to any chosen cause… even if it’s the central government? I see nothing wrong with Obama suggesting to the wealthy they can cut a gift to the IRS. It’s not a mandate. In fact, is that not what many of us have been saying for a while now?
As I said, I suspect this is a set up for the campaign trail, and that Obama is going to do just that this year – just to make Romney appear even more the selfish, evil capitalist pig – and to set the example of a responsible wealthy class. Perfect campaign ploy…
I can see the ad now. Obama’s gift check to the IRS pictured, with Romney’s Florida debate words playing as the sound track.
And of course he wants more taxes… he’s a Euro-socialist Democrat with a penchant for wealth redistribution.
@johngalt:
John, you’re a little ‘T’d off’ I see … however as for spelling your name correctly, I think I’ve galt it now’
By the way, I took umbrage with the very premise of your question, and I think demonstrated the problem with your think. It seems you missed those points.
I also reread your ‘I want my own giving way’ argument, and the ‘c(R)ony giving’ assessment, stands rather well as a response, particularly given equality is the opposite of c(R)onism .
Snerd
I guess Obama isn’t holding his nose up so high because he is so haughty. It’s because he is getting guidance from above. I guess he is keeping in constant contact with God. I guess I misjudged him.
@johngalt:I think Snerd is more preoccupied with being snide rather than making clear points. Although he does point to everyone but himself. I think it is best to move on. This is that case where you can’t wrestle with a pig in the mud because the pig loves it!
@Randy:
I believe you are correct about him, Randy. I guess it was too much to ask to have a simple discussion about Obama and his referencing of religion and how that differs from politicians on the right and their referencing of religion.
One difference is that Obama references religion a lot less, in spite of the fact that his supporters include people having religious sentiments. A lot of people don’t tend to display their religious feelings in a political context, or to display them so openly in public.
There’s a firm basis for a left leaning political orientation in the words of Christ, if that has somehow gone unnoticed. Not so much for the economic and social thinking of the right. That doesn’t get talked about much by the left, for the reason stated in the first paragraph, and because most liberals believe that religion and state must be separate in a society built on liberal principles.
Sorry but Barack Obama is easily confused. Barack believes that the teachings of Robin Hood and Jesus Christ are the same thing… Barack’s “cafeteria Christianity” missed the main course that Jesus’s core teaching is to reconcile individual human beings to God for the critical next life!!!
Instead, Barach spent too many years absorbing the teachings of Jeremiah Wright( “God damn America!!!!”)
If it’s all about the next life, why did so much of what Jesus said have to do with our obligation to the poor in this one?
@Greg:
Firstly, I will thank you, Greg, for entering the discussion without the “snide” comments that others engage in. An honest, straight-out discussion is all I asked for, and I appreciate it.
On your first sentence, you have essentially stated that it is acceptable to liberals because Obama does it less, correct. However, you then have gone on to assign a mischaracterization of the right that isn’t correct, although I’m not going to go into that right now.
Essentially, you accept that it’s ok for someone to do something, even if it violates your own ideology, as you stated when you said, “and because most liberals believe that religion and state must be separate in a society built on liberal principles.” Well, it’s that very thought process that liberals have displayed here, and elsewhere, as to the reasoning behind me asking my question. Forget about “degrees of guilt” for a minute. If something is wrong, based on one’s principles, is it not wrong whether the act was done only once or a thousand times? To stand on principle, one must not accept, or justify, an action based on the amount of transgression, but rather, whether it was done. In this case, Obama surely referenced God, and in particular, the Christian God, as his basis behind his thinking, or viewpoint. He committed a sin against your stated view on the matter. Now, forgiveness for sins committed is up to the individual. But, if you extend forgiveness for this sin, shouldn’t it also be extended to all else who commit this sin? In other words, if Obama gets a pass for stating that his religious views have influenced his viewpoints on how government should govern, shouldn’t other politicians get that same pass, regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong in their viewpoint? To do otherwise is hypocritical.
And, as I said above in my first posting, this isn’t about whether Obama is right about his linking Christ to taxation or not. This is purely about the liberal viewpoint that you stated so clearly on church and state. It also doesn’t matter about whether I think your viewpoints on church and state are right or wrong. This is simply about the transgression, and accompanying forgiveness being extended only to those whose beliefs are similar.
And, I would call people hypocritical if it was the other way around as well. Meaning, if they accept a person on the right for using God, any God, as a foundation of their principles, and promoted it in public, but then derided Obama for doing so.
In the end, I don’t believe that anyone should be accepting of Obama using such reference points in public, if that same person criticizes those on the right for doing so. One can, however, criticize the particulars about Obama’s reference and why they feel it is right, or support it if they feel it is wrong, just as they can do with anyone on the right.
@Greg:
I can imagine you pretending to be the snake in the garden of Eden.
He asked Eve Is it REALLY so that God said….?
Same tone.
I have stated this time and time again here at FA. There is a major difference between people who believe an ideology and those who are guided by personal values. People can compromise their ideologies and still be able to view themselves in the mirror each morning since ideology is just a belief system. On the other hand, if a person violates their personal values through compromise he/she cannot look at themselves in the mirror without forgiveness from God.
For those who view the world through their ideology, they do include God in their ideology. After all, Pastor Wright includes God in his ideology with his “God damn America”. (By the way, that is a violation of the 10 Commandments!) Isn’t this the ideology that Obama embraces and has embraced for over 23 years?
Then again, those Catholic Bishops who spoke to their flocks during the past 2 Sundays discussed how the Obama health care mandate violates their personal values. For them to compromise those values, means they violated their relationship with God and themselves.
Christ’s mandates are not group mandates, but individual mandates each of us must follow to achieve Grace.
Those who follow their ideology are not concerned with achieving a status of Grace while those who follow their personal value system are concerned with achieving and maintaining Grace.
To Greg, our Obama Mama minion…
…consider wisdom from thousands of years ago
Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV 1978
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left”
Check out this site! http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare-vs-catholics_620946.html?nopager=1
Some interesting comments on hoow Obama will break down the vesige of society.
@Greg: #23
I am curious if you go along with the idea of the separation of church and State. I am confused by the ones who are for it. SEPARATION means that the two would be separate and not influenced by the other. The Constitution says that the USA can’t create a religion. I agree with the idea that this means that it can’t endorse a religion either.
If there is a full separation of church and State, this would mean several things:
(1) The USA has no control over what goes on in the church and can’t tell them what to do or not do.
(2) We would be going back to when the church had the authority to kill and not be punished.
(3) Anybody working for the church wouldn’t have to pay Federal taxes.
(4) If a church wanted to start a business, that business wouldn’t have to pay taxes. The different governments (city, county, state, Federal) couldn’t stop them, because of the separation of church and State.
I’m surprised the churches haven’t sued the government for ANY taxes assessed to them since the separation of church and State was enacted. If they did, look how much each government would owe them.
@Chuck Jaeger: #24
Obama is a mixture of Jesus Christ and Robin Hood. He wants you to give to him, but if you don’t, he wants to take from you.
@johngalt: We live in the most religious nation in the industrialized, western world—Obama realizes this fact, and must appeal to this consensus by his rhetoric.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
I see that you missed my point in my comments. But, having stated what you just did, isn’t it ok, then, if someone on the right does the same, regardless of your view on the particular content?
@Liberal1:
So, he’s a liar, then.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Each time finding piety only as an election looms.
Toldja
Eric Metaxas spoke at the Prayer Breakfast just before Obama…..yet he shredded Obama in advance!
The Corner has this:
Later in his speech took on the false Christianity of those who are pro-abortion:
Afterward the group was treated to watching Obama forced to uncomfortably read a speech which had just been shredded to pieces by a man who couldn’t possibly have known what was coming. And as he did so, the audience in that room likely left with Metaxas’s four-word condemnation, intentional or not, of the 44th president of the United States ringing in their ears:
“God is not fooled.”
@Smorgasbord, #31:
I’m of the opinion that a church or religion has authority only to the extent that an adherent willingly grants it over himself or herself. It doesn’t extend a hair’s breadth beyond that, nor does it extend by virtue of that granting to anyone else.
The law of the land should be strictly secular. That is my understanding of separation of church and state. I don’t want fundamentalist Christian “authorities” breathing down my neck any more than fundamentalist Muslim “authorities”. That means they don’t get to act out their religious beliefs wearing the power of government like a glove. Period. Any time they try it, I’ll oppose it.
@Greg: Greg, you, like nost who call themselves progressives believe the Constitution needs to be modified to meet todays challenges. You want the Constitution to guide big government in their efforts to govern we the unwashed! The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the reach of the federal government. The Founding Fathers had seen the impact of a big central government and rebelled against it. That is why they limited the power of the federal government.
Federalism places the power of governing in the hands of the individual voter. The individual voter determins what he/she needs in a government at the local level, regional level and state level. The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not from religion. The federal government does not have the power to force any religion to do anything. There is ofcourse the potential for fringe religions, but the Catholic religion does not fall into that category. When the federal government demands a religious organization do something against the fundamental beliefs of that religion, the federal government has exceeded its athority. This is exactly what Obama has done.
The impact of Obama’s attack on the Catholic religion by forcing health care providers to perform abortions will result in a great number of health clinics that now support the poor to close their doors. There have been several bloggers who have commented that this attack on the Catholics is very similar to Hitler’s caculated attack on the Jews. We all know how that turned out.
Again, greg, you have missed the point. If freedom of religion is taken away from us by the federal government, what will the next freedom they will take away? What if it is a conserative president and he decides that being a liberal is a threat to national security? What if he pulls a Stalan and has you all sent to Nome to mine gold to pay for the 49% who pay no taxes? This is why we are against this attack against the Catholic Church. We would also be against intering you liberals by a conserative president because it would violate you rights. ( Under Obama’s new security act, he would lawfully be able to inter all of you lefties as terrorists with no trial!)
@Randy, #39:
A requirement that a full range of reproductive services be covered by an employer’s insurance plan is not a requirement that any covered person utilize that full range of services.
Do you want any employer to be in a position to dictate on religious grounds what services their employees’ medical insurance will or won’t cover? What gives any employer the right to do that?
What the Catholic church objects to is the fact that its power over the individual is being diminished, and the individual’s power to choose for himself or herself is being increased.
The church has every right to attempt to convince. It isn’t the business of government to help them coerce.
@Greg: Greg, your head is stuck so far up your ideology that you can not see anything. The issue here is mandate, not choice. Employers are forced (mandated) to provide specific services. Employers are in a position to dictate. Employees can choose to work there or not. That is what happens in a free country.
What the Catholic Church is objecting to is not control over individuals you twit! The Catholic Church is based on the premis that sexual relations are to procreate. Abortion, the day after pill, sterilization and other items that are mandated by Obama care is in direct violation of those values. Why don’t you spend a little time studying the real issues before you stroke the keyboard?
The issue here Greg is personal values. I know you progressives do not understand a life guided by personal values. You lefties believe that the “end justifies the means” while those with personal values are concerned about the means.
@Greg: #38
I agree with you. As I have mentioned before, if one religion should be used to help make laws, then if another religion is the most prevalent later on, then that is the religion that should influence laws.
As I was writing the above, I happened to think that if we let one religion help make laws, doesn’t that mean we have to let ALL religions help make laws? Wouldn’t that be a mess!
I agree with you. As I have mentioned before, if one religion should be used to help make laws, then if another religion is the most prevalent later on, then that is the religion that should influence laws.
As I was writing the above, I happened to think that if we let one religion help make laws, doesn’t that mean we have to let ALL religions help make laws? Wouldn’t that be a mess!
On the other side of the coin, I would rather live in a very religions area than one that condemns those who are religious.
@Smorgasbord: The issue here is not that one religion is making the law. The issue is that the federal government is making a law that infringes on freedom of religion. Take away our freedom to belive our way and what will they take away next. Remember Animal Farm?
@Randy: #44
I was just agreeing with Greg that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with religion. I also agree Obama has no right to tell any religion what to do about contraceptives. The king’s orders apply to All religions, not just the Catholic church.
I can’t remember ever hearing about the book. I’m not much of a book reader.
@Randy, #42:
Among the personal values that I hold of highest importance is that of personal freedom. What employers don’t have a fundamental right to control–except to the extent that it directly affects an employee’s ability to satisfactorily perform the work that he or she was hired to do–is an employee’s personal life. I can think of few things more private and personal than an individual’s own reproductive choices.
Religious freedom is a personal freedom, to be exercised in accordance with the dictates of an individual’s own beliefs and conscience. It’s not an institutional right, guaranteeing some religious organization the freedom to control an individual’s behavior in accordance with its established religious doctrine.
There are countries where that is not the case. Because of our Constitution, the United States isn’t one of them. In my opinion, it’s the business of every patriotic American to keep it that way.
@Greg: So, who do you think the Biships are representing? They represent all of the individuals who believe the teaching of the Catholic Church. The issue here is still it doesn’t matter how many people believe this. Ona,a is forcin this on everyone! (forcing and freedom do not do well together.) Obama is not King yet, as much as you lefties want to make him so! The issue is Obama specifically mandadated against a belief of a religous order. You should under stand what this means to a practicing Catholic. Obama knew what his “orders” meant and still did it. That is violation of religous freedom as much as forcing everyone to purchase health insurance or be punished. (Obama Care does this!)
The is no place in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to mandate that all individuals are mandated to purchase something or face punishment. This mandate violates many freedoms not just religious freedoms!
I am wrestling with the pig in the mud!
@Randy, #48:
Basically what’s happening in this country is that the religious right is attempting to force their own precepts and ideas of proper conduct onto everyone else, not being content simply have the guaranteed freedom to conduct themselves in accordance with those beliefs themselves.
This attitude will be the downfall of the republican presidential bid in 2012. Every republican front runner has now openly embraced a position on women’s reproductive rights–including the issues of choice, birth control options, and insurance coverage for the most commonly used forms of birth control–that a majority of women voters have repeatedly rejected across party lines every time they’ve recently come up in state elections. Haven’t these guys been paying attention?
Any clue what the average annual out-of-pocket cost for birth control for women will be, if it’s no longer covered by health insurance?
You do realize that efforts are afoot in some states to make some of the the most common forms of birth control flat-out illegal? That would be one side-effect of extending the legal definition of a person back to the moment of conception.
Do you really think a majority of women voters are going to sit still for that? If so, the 2012 elections for the GOP are going to turn into something akin to Custer’s Last Stand. If it happens, they’ll have nobody but themselves to blame for it.
@Greg: You will never get the point Greg. You will never get the point Greg. You either have a minimal ability to understand simple concepts or you choose to continually change the focus. The issue here is solely that the federal government is exceeding its authority given it under the Constitution of the US. It has nothing to do with health care for women or anyone else. The federal government is mandating policy on individuals who belong to a religious organization. The federal government does not have the power to do that. That is the sole issue I have been discussing while you seem to be distracted as easily! Last post on this subject! I do not know if I can get all of the mud off!
Your favorite liberal commentator reads the writing on the wall concerning women’s reproductive issues and the coming presidential elections.
Fortunately for Obama and other democrats on the ballot this coming November, very few republicans watch the program. They’ll be completely blindsided when this issue is suddenly a central democratic campaign topic. Nobody else will be surprised.
Hey, there’s still time for noted republican flip floppers to start flip flopping! Don’t expect any change of position on the left, however. The left is consistent in its support of women’s reproductive rights. It has to do with the value placed on personal freedom.