Stand Fast Thou' the Wall is Breached!

From USA Today a few days ago:

Obama: Don't use religion to deny constitutional rights

The Oval

David Jackson, USA TODAY 7:21 a.m. EDT September 28, 2015

President Obama says he respects religious liberty, but it cannot be used to deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who are entitled to them.

"We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions," Obama said at a Democratic National Committee LGBT gala Sunday in New York City.

"But," he added, "we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights."

Obama appeared to reference the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, saying it violated her faith.

A federal judge had Davis jailed for several days because of her actions in defiance of the June decision by the Supreme Court sanctioning same-sex unions.

In his remarks Sunday to donors, Obama said gay marriage supporters should understand that the change "has been a whirlwind" for many Americans, and that there remains some "unease." The president said, "it's important for us to recognize that there are still parts of the country that are getting there, but it's going to take some time."

But that doesn't mean people can use religion to deny people their rights, Obama added -- and political candidates shouldn't encourage them.

"Even as we are respectful and accommodating genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions, we need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes," Obama said. "That's not how we move America forward."

Oh Lord, this makes my head hurt. Do you see? Religious Freedom isn't considered a constitutional right by these people, but gay marriage and abortion are. How do you even relate to someone so disconnected from reality?

And this is rich. Didn't he say, back in 2009, something about unifying the country and not being the president of this part or that part but of the whole country?

Except for those "parts of the country" who aren't with the program yet. And there is no alternative but to get on the Progressive bus. There is no room for deviation from the received truth of the Progressive Gnostics. "there are still parts of the country that are getting there," "there." Obama cannot conceive of valid opposing views.

Tolerance of opposing views to him means shutting down bakeries and bankrupting families simply because their faith conflicts with his vision. "it's going to take some time." he says.

Well, times up for Aaron and Melissa Klein 

The First Amendment, according to Obama, reads: "The Federal bureaucracy shall be respectful and accommodating to the genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions."

A little bit different from James Madison's version, to be sure. And wholly disconnected with the actual life of faith to which a truly religious person attempts to live.

Oh, and by the way, we do need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes. Politicians like him and almost every other Democrat who voted for the Affordable Care Act. The law that empowered the Secretary of HHS to force religious organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for abortions and contraceptives. The people who supported SSM and are cheering; as religious people, colleges, and other organizations are buffeted with legal challenges for trying to live and work according to their faith.

I'm sure he is hopeful that his party will continue in power until the Catholic Church, the Baptist Convention, faithful Christians, and those other 'parts of the country' 'get there' or are crushed.

Thefederalist.com carried an opinion piece that is worth a read.

Taxing Churches Would Marry Church And State

"Saying government can tax religious organizations affirms the sovereignty of state over church."

Obama said that religious faith shouldn’t trump civil rights. He has it upside down, of course. But I doubt if he could see it any other way. He already assumes, I’m sure – as does Niose and others – that the state is sovereign over everything within its unlimited purview, including churches.

Beginning to feel like the Great Siege of Malta

Which was fought against overwhelming odds, but with faith in God.

But which the Christians ultimately prevailed, by God's grace.

Some Animals are More Equal than Others

From USA Today a few days ago:

Obama: Don't use religion to deny constitutional rights

 The Oval 
David Jackson, USA TODAY 7:21 a.m. EDT September 28, 2015

President Obama says he respects religious liberty, but it cannot be used to deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who are entitled to them.

"We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions," Obama said at a Democratic National Committee LGBT gala Sunday in New York City.

"But," he added, "we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights."

Obama appeared to reference the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, saying it violated her faith.

A federal judge had Davis jailed for several days because of her actions in defiance of the June decision by the Supreme Court sanctioning same-sex unions.

In his remarks Sunday to donors, Obama said gay marriage supporters should understand that the change "has been a whirlwind" for many Americans, and that there remains some "unease." The president said, "it's important for us to recognize that there are still parts of the country that are getting there, but it's going to take some time."

But that doesn't mean people can use religion to deny people their rights, Obama added -- and political candidates shouldn't encourage them.

"Even as we are respectful and accommodating genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions, we need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes," Obama said. "That's not how we move America forward."

Oh Lord, this makes my head hurt. Do you see? Religious Freedom isn't considered a constitutional right by these people, but gay marriage and abortion are. How do you even relate to someone so disconnected with objective reality?

And this is rich. Didn't he say, back in 2009, something about unifying the country and not being the president of this part or that part but of the whole country?

Except for those "parts of the country" who aren't with the program yet. And there is no alternative but to get on the Progressive bus. There is no room for deviation from the received truth of the Progressive Gnostics. "there are still parts of the country that are getting there," "there" there is only one place to get to,

Tolerance of opposing views to him means, not shutting down bakeries and bankrupting families simply because their faith conflicts with his vision. "it's going to take some time." he says.
Well, times up for Aaron and Melissa Klein 

The First Amendment, according to Obama reads, "The Federal bureaucracy shall be respectful and accommodating to the genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions."
A little bit different from James Madison's version, to be sure. And wholly disconnected with the actual life of faith to which a truly religious person attempts to live.

Oh, and by the way, we do need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes. Like him and almost every other Democratic politician who voted for the Affordable Care Act, which directed the Secretary of HHS to force religious organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortions and contraceptives; who supported SSM and are cheering as religious people, colleges and other organizations are buffeted with legal challenges for trying to live and work according to their faith.

I'm sure he is hopeful that his party will continue in power until the Catholic Church, the Baptist Convention, faithful Christians and those other 'parts of the country' 'get there' or are crushed. 

What the AP thinks you should think

AP sources: Administration mulls pared health law

An entire article of *no news* is news only because its main purpose seems to be guiding readers what to think when finally there is news on the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

"Even if the requirement that nearly every U.S. resident have health insurance is declared unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law would have far-reaching impact, putting coverage within reach of millions of uninsured people, laying new obligations on insurers and employers, and improving Medicare benefits even as payments to many service providers get scaled back."

How terrible it would be for the Supreme Court think Health is unconstitutional! But our guardian would go ahead and put coverage within reach of millions, make nasty corporations fulfill their obligations to us the 99% and it would simutaneously improve Medicare benefits and scale back payments to 'service providers' (aka the doctors, nurses and hospitals that actually provide us with medical care and services - but who are inordinately among the *not 99%)*.

"Because the law's main coverage expansion does not begin until 2014, there would be time to try to fix serious problems that losing the individual coverage requirement may cause for the health insurance industry."

In case you forgot, it is the nasty Republicans and their partisan allies on the court that threaten to cause 'serious problems' to the insurance industry - NOT the Obama administration, Democrat lawmakers or their allies who will profit from the law - so who ya' gonna vote for?

"Surviving parts of the law would "absolutely" move ahead, said the congressional official. A Congress mired in partisan trench warfare would be unable to repeal or amend what's left of the law, allowing the administration to advance. Much of the money for covering the uninsured was already provided in the law itself.




"Legislatively we can't do a thing, and we are going to move full speed ahead (with implementation)," the official said."

Why do I hear a "Bwwaaaa-Haaaa-haaa-HAAA" in that statement?

"Skeptical questioning by the court's conservative justices during oral arguments this spring has fueled speculation that the court may invalidate the so-called individual mandate."

Umm. Sonia Sotomayor is not usually counted among the 'court's conservative justices.' And yet, she appeared skeptical too.
But the AP does give both sides of the issue - sorta.

"Opponents say the requirement that individuals have coverage is unconstitutional, that the federal government can't tell people to obtain particular goods or services."

vice:

"Supporters say the mandate is a necessary component of a broader scheme to regulate health insurance, which is well within the powers of Congress. By requiring people to carry health insurance or pay a fine, the law seeks to broaden the pool of people with coverage, helping to keep premiums affordable.


If the mandate is struck down, that would still leave in place a major expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state safety net program for low-income people.

The Medicaid expansion was originally estimated to account for about half the more than 30 million people slated to get coverage under the law. Without a mandate, the number would be smaller but still significant.

Federal tax credits to help middle-class people buy private health coverage would also survive, as would new state-based insurance markets.

Such subsidies have never previously been available, and millions are expected to take advantage of them, whether or not insurance is required by law. Still, it could be tricky to salvage the law's full blueprint for helping middle-class uninsured people.

Overturning the mandate would have harmful consequences for the private insurance market. Under the law, insurers would still have to accept all applicants regardless of health problems, and they would be limited in what they can charge older, sicker customers.

As a result, premiums for people who directly buy their own coverage would jump by 15 percent to 20 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Older, sicker people would flock to get health insurance but younger, healthier ones would hold back.

To forestall such a problem, the administration asked the court - if it declares the mandate unconstitutional - to also strike down certain consumer protections, including the requirement on insurers to cover people with pre-existing health problems. That would mitigate a damaging spike in premiums.

Whether or not the court goes along with that request, more work would be needed to find alternatives to a federal mandate. That could provide an opening for state officials, as well as major insurance companies, to join in finding workable substitutes for the mandate. Congressional approval would likely be needed.

Without the individual requirement, some 14 million people would still get coverage, budget office estimates suggest. Supporters of the law point out that's still a lot of people."

Yeah. That's balance.