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.

If it doesn't get printed in a newspaper, it isn't news, right?

Apparently the Washington Post thinks so. The threat to religious freedom isn't news, because, according to the WaPo, there is no threat.

I stumbled across this story, celebrating the election of a Hindu woman and a Buddist woman to Congress. Wonderful. Of course, they are both Democrats, which makes it more wonderful still for the WaPo writers. What the article chiefly celebrates is the decline of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants in government and in America at large. With no real reason why this is worth celebrating except diversity is inherently good.

The author, Charles C. Haynes claims, "in 2012, religious minorities became newly visible and vocal in a society historically dominated by the symbols, values and leaders of the Protestant faith," but fails to mention the protests of the most visible, most vocal religious minority: the Catholic and Christian protests against erosion of religous liberty under ObamaCare and other HHS mandates. Must not be news when bishops, cardinals, universities, orders of religious, hospitals and even the Pope publicly oppose the policies of the current administration.

Nope. "The growing visibility and strength of America’s religious diversity is good news for religious freedom. The First Amendment affords legal protections, but it cannot fully prevent people in the majority from imposing social discrimination and political exclusion on those in the minority." The big news is that a couple of Democrats who are not Episcopalian or Baptist were elected to Congress.

Haynes goes on, "as domination of one faith recedes, freedom for all faiths and beliefs expands – moving us ever-closer to fulfilling the promise of religious liberty under the First Amendment."

Tell that to  the Green family, who own and operate the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores. They are Christian. They run their business according to their Christian principles, which include both providing for their employees and not paying for the intentional destruction of pre-born persons. The HHS Mandate under ObamaCare will force them to violate those principles or face up to 1.3 millions dollars per day in fines; which will no doubt destroy their business and put out of work the employees in more than 500 stores in 41 states.

That seems like a slightly bigger story than a couple of non-Christian Democrats being elected to Congress.

But not to the wisdom of the WaPo editorialists.

A search of the WaPo website on "Hobby Lobby" returned only five AP reports on the topic. Nothing by Post writers. Nothing beyond brief wire reports. It isn't news to the WaPo and its readers because it does not fit into their neat little view of how the world should be. It violates their reality therefore it doesn't exist.

If the GOP thows me under the bus, I won't be on their bus

Eric Ericson at RedState warns the GOP establishment against doing what it will very likely do: throw Social Conservatives under the bus.

And why it is a very stupid thing to do.

"What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role."

Yeah. That does make sense. While there are vestiges of the old Republican party still bouncing around in the Establishment, to a very large degree, Neo-Cons have become the GOP Establishment. Neo-Cons, as you may recall, were originally Liberals who disagreed with their fellow Leftists on anti-Communism. They were (are) Liberal on everything but national defense, Capitalism and Israel. And what were Mitt Romney's main talking points? Taxes, Israel, and saving the Defense budget. While the GOP platform is strongly Pro-Life and pro family, the candidates selected by the party tend to soft-pedal and trim on social issues.

"The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine."

This explains something that's bothered me for a few days.
The majority of Americans favor restrictions on abortion and oppose government funding of abortion;
Yet, they elected the most pro-abortion president in the history of the world

The majority of Americans oppose redefinition of marriage;
Yet they elected the president who will most likely force it on the republic.

The majority of Americans do belong to a church;
Yet they elected the first president to intentionally, blatantly and unappologetically shred the concept of Free Exercise of Religion.

Because Mitt Romney let himself be defined as the man who wanted to cut taxes for the rich and was afraid or unwilling to defend Life, Marriage and Religion in the public square.

If the GOP Neo-Con establishment does in fact abandon the social issues, it'll lose me. I'm not willing to support a party that really is the defender of plutocrats and Randians. And I have no desire to be a member of the permanent minority.

It isn't necessary, though. This election offered one of the starkest examples of the two concepts of government at issue in this country. Obama explicitly embodies the idea that government is the core of society. Romney and Ryan made a fair representation of the idea that government is merely a framework which allows society to function fairly and efficiently.

I'm willing to fight for that principle of limited government. That principle is sound enough to encompass both Social and Fiscal conservatism. It can be expressed in words the electorate understands and accepts. But if the Establishment GOP is unwilling to do that, and merely continues to argue for lower taxes and less regulations because - well because; while conceding on issues of culture that are vital to the continued health of our society, then I am leaving.

Can the Republican Establishment fight for these principles? I can.


Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:


■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;

■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.

■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Free expression fil ana, la fil thou

Feds Arrest Producer Of Controversial Anti-Islam Film On Probation Violation Charge

Yes, no argument that he violated his probation, as far as the publicly available facts indicate. But is there any question that he would not be in jail without parole today if his YouTube video had been about kittens chasing ceiling fans?

Oh, and his pastor is described as a "radical Coptic cleric".   So, do "America's Values" and First Amendment Freedoms demand that 'radical' Coptic Christians are imprisioned in America for making a YouTube video while radical Muslims are released from Guantanamo for killing Americans?   During his speech at the UN, the president said, "I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that."   Shall we parse this for a moment?  "this particular understanding" is codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But the 1st Amendment isn't a reflection of a 'particular understanding' which others may or may not share. It is a recognition of an inalienable right that exists outside of, precedes and supercedes 'particular understandings.' It is part and parcel of those inalienable rights which are endowed upon all Men by their Creator whether radical Islamists; Communist, Socialist or Fascist dictators; or witlings posing as intellectual elites 'share this particular understanding' or not. So, what we recognize, which appears to be somewhat different from what the president prefers to recognize is that those countries that do not have a proper understanding of the Natual Law and who do not recognize their citizen's right to freedom of speech or religion are wrong and very likely illegitimate. They certainly hold no moral equivalency with a nation that does recognize the natural rights of its citizens. Their MIS-understanding of the particular right to free speech is not simply another particular understanding but a grave error of understanding.   Obama does not recognize that. He has always seemed to have trouble with objective reality, objective truth, transcendant Natural Law and other things that really and truly are "above his pay grade."

Dreams from Chairman Mao

The current artificial crisis over the draconian HHS mandate has been manufactured by the Administration even though or perhaps because it tramples 1st Amendment freedoms. It's difficult to believe that the Administration's conflict with the Catholic Church was unanticipated and unintentional; it is one more instance of them being either complete idiots or wholly evil. Of course, it's also possible that they're both.

In 2008, the majority of Catholics in the US voted for Obama. The Catholic hierarchy, though less blindly committed to Democratic policies than their predecessors, maintained a generally favorable view toward Democratic social welfare schemes. They have a long history of supporting the concept of universal healthcare. Until it became clear that Obamacare would be used to advance abortion and contraception, the bishops supported it. HHS could have easily crafted a regime of mandates that provided cover for Catholics and Catholic institutions who support Obama and Obamacare but who want to maintain the appearance of adherence to Catholic doctrine: Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame, Sr. Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, the Campaign for Human Development, America and Commonweal magazines, etc. While events have shown that some members of this motley crew have placed allegiance to their Progressive ideology over their obedience to their bishops and the teachings of their church, the Administration could have gotten much broader support from prominent Catholics and Catholic organizations with little if any real cost in support from radical feminists and the Abortion industry.

Nevertheless, the Administration's political calculus and/or blind ideology led them to make a very public, very resolute and very radical stand on 'women's health issues,' AKA: contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs.

The Administration very publicly announced an extreme policy on the only issue that the bishops might balk at. And they left no room in it for sophistry or Jesuitry by the administration's Catholic lap-dogs. They refused to waver from a policy that directly puts the bishops and faithful Catholic organizations in a position where they must either choose to serve Caesar or to serve God.

So far, the bishops have hewn to St. Thomas More's example of being "the kings good servant, but God's first." Lord preserve us from having to follow too far in his footsteps.

On March 2nd, Cardinal Dolan of NY, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a letter to his brother bishops. He made it clear that the conflict is not about contraception but about religious freedom and the relationship between the secular society and religious associations in a free society:

"How fortunate that we as a body have had opportunities during our past plenary assemblies to manifest our strong unity in defense of religious freedom.  We rely on that unity now more than ever as HHS seeks to define what constitutes church ministry and how it can be exercised." "Since January 20, when the final, restrictive HHS Rule was first announced, we have become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it. We recall the words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI to our brother bishops on their recent ad limina visit: 'Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.'” "We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans.  We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it."

Cardinal Dolan made one observation, however, that gave me pause - as if the Obama administration's assault on religious freedom and its radical anti-family and anti-life agenda weren't enough.

Cardinal Dolan described "a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is,
revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the
table.  They were informed that they are.  So much for “working out the wrinkles.”  Instead, they 
advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of 
accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in
America.  The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand 
Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has 
nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers."(emphasis mine)

That remark reminded me of something: The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.

Nah, couldn't be. Certainly, in a country whose Constitution contains the explicit words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof" the government would never consider mandating what is or isn't a religious organization, prescribing what religious organizations may or may not do or deciding who does or does not speak for a particular religion. That is too great a violation of the Constitution and the long tradition of religious freedom in this country. But that is exactly what Cardinal Dolan shows that the Obama administration is doing. That is also exactly the official policy of the Communist regime in Beijing.

But what would lead a reasonable person to suspect an American president of aspiring to have the sort of totalitarian control exercised by Hu Jintao?

Maybe the president's on comments?

Jonah Goldberg observed recently, "He's even reportedly expressed envy for Chinese President Hu Jintao. "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China," the New York Times reported last year. "As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahrir Square.'"

I haven't read "Dreams from My Father," but I half expect to see a pocket-sized version with a red cover to hit the streets if Obama wins a second term.