Liberty, Tyranny and The First Amendment

In the years after America won its freedom from Great Britain the colonies drafted and eventually approved a Constitution. To secure ratification of the new founding document concessions had to be granted, including the addition of a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments were intended to secure our basic liberties. Including the right of a person to observe their faith as they see fit.

The Obama administration has put that basic First Amendment right under attack. The Health and Human Services department, issued a mandate declaring that because Catholic social service programs don't serve only Catholics they aren't worthy of a conscience exemption regarding provision of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs. So in essence the church is being punished for living out the words of Her founder....Matthew 25:34-36, tells us what Christ expects of us, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick. He didn't instruct us to only do those things for people who believe the same as we do.

In fact one of His most illuminating parables is the story of the Good Samaritan, a man who did all of those things for someone who was essentially his enemy.

The HHS mandate was for all intents and purposes crafted by the ACLU. The ACLU wrote a mandate that is in effect in only three states (California, New York and Oregon.). Even within that mandate there were ways that Catholic social service agencies could find relief. However the new mandate from HHS closes all of those avenues.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the head of the HHS is herself a Catholic, which makes the forcefulness of this legislation all the more disturbing. However it is heartening that Sebelius has been denied Communion both in Kansas and Washington, D.C.

All of this leads me to the thought that we once fought a war to ensure our freedom of worship, now it is under attack by our very own government.

So our government is now telling us how to practice our religion, how to live our faith. That doesn't sound very much like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in force, with 169 of roughly 183 bishops issuing statements condemning the new mandate. The assorted Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals all urge the faithful to action.

Indeed action is sorely needed. As most of the letters no doubt urge us as faithful Catholics to do we should fast, pray and contact Congress and the President as well as Secretary Sebelius. Urge them to reconsider and rewrite this mandate.

Support Marco Rubio who recently introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 to Congress.

These are the times that try men's souls...Words as true now as they were in late December of 1776. Thomas Paine was referring to the then months old War for Independence.

He might just as easily be describing another tyrannical act by a far more worrisome menace. Duly elected officials trampling on the rights won by the blood of the very people who Paine wrote to some 236 years ago.

Surely the great martyrs of the past, men and women who were fed to lions; or boiled in oil; or crucified; or burned at the stake, must be looking at this persecution and urging us to fight and defend the faith they died for; the Truth that cost them their lives.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

The Man Child and The Mad Man

Did you happen to see President Obama's speech on Libya last night. I refused to watch it as I feel my brain cells die every time he opens his mouth. If it sounded as dumb as it reads then I am sorry for anyone who sat through it. But let's investigate the adminstrations waffling and ineptitude.

I missed Meet the Press this weekend, should have tuned in, because evidently SecDef Gates said and has said many times we are in Libya with an eye toward "Regime Change". He started to repeat himself to David Gregory and SecState Clinton cut him off and changed that tune in a hurry. Evidently Gates (the only grown-up in the Administration) didn't say much else the rest of the show. 

So beyond the fact that his administration can't get on the same page, BO decides to befoul the airwaves with his simmering ineptitude. Schedule to air early enough so as not to upset people wanting to tune in to "Dancing with the Stars," I guess, House was a rerun so Monday's TV was lost anyway, why not let BO impress us with his legendary oratorical (reading) skills.

Can the man appear before a camera and not take shots at President Bush, I have yet to see it. Even when those shots are unfounded and inaccurate. It came late in the speech, probably he was hoping folks would have nodded off by then, and missed it. I missed this one until Rush pointed it out this morning but he even took a shot at President Clinton about Bosnia.

Compare Obama bumbling and stumbling around; only giving speeches after things have happened and even then muddling his words until they mean nothing with President Bush's speeches during the lead up to the "Shock and Awe" campaign which opened the Iraq war. One of the two was a real leader; the other a real idiot. Not to mention Bush went to the UN got resolutions, shared information with Congress, got their approval and had something like 80% popular approval before the first bombs fell.

Obama in his speech mentioned his coalition (smaller and less enthusiastically supportive, especially in the Arab world) than the "Coalition of the Willing" that joined us in invading Iraq. He mentions how we are transferring the lead role of the Operations in Libya to the UN and NATO. Never mind that the US for all intents and purposes runs NATO. To quote my favorite WWE superstar the Miz "Really....Really Mr. President?"

Does he think anyone who pays attention doesn't understand that NATO is the international equivalent of Diana Ross and the Supremes (or maybe Gladys Knight and the Pips).

Returning to his speech, sorry but that is what I am writing about, Obama insists that the "Regime Change" in Iraq took 8 years. For such a "brilliant" man he sure is an idiot. By the time there were American boots on the ground in Iraq the regime had changed. Uday and Qusay were about to be killed and Saddam was hiding in a spider hole.

The parallels between how the left views President Bush's supposed hurry to go into Iraq and President Obama's bumbling into Libya, are sickening. Bottom line we have no real goal or reason for being there; we have no exit plan; we have no timetable for our actions. All charges lobbed against George Bush without merit and yet I don't see the media taking Obama to task for these things.

If this were purely a humanitarian effort as Obama tried to make it out to be, why aren't US troops in Darfur, North Korea, China or any of the other places where there are equally atrocious human rights issues. Try again Bambi.

Someone wake me up when the administration gets their act together and decides what our goals are. Depose Qaddafi? Support the opposition? Humanitarianism?

And if you don't think Americans will put boots on the ground in Libya, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Arizona I would like to show you.

America's Chihuahua in Chief.....

On April 9, 1986, Ronald Reagan called Moammar Qaddafi, "The Mad Dog of the Middle East". Yesterday, his successor couldn't even be bothered to name the man accused of strafing his own citizens with the military assets of their own country. Yet Barack Obama always tries to push some sort of connection to Reagan. It makes me want to vomit every time I hear someone bring those two names up in the same breath.

President Reagan believed very strongly in peace. Peace through strength. He didn't feel the need to go pick a fight with anyone, but we would damn sure be ready should someone pick one with us. Obama on the other hand has spent his time in office, apologizing for America and continually weakening us at home and abroad.

As it is it was nine days, nine, seriously nine days before Obama could even be bothered to mention that there was something afoot in Libya. His handlers claim there were some scheduling conflicts..... WHAT!!!! You are the President of the United States, when the world is on fire it behooves you to clear some time from your schedule to address it Mr. President. Could be worse it was what three weeks before he acknowledged the oil spill last summer.

Seems when his buddies/donors are in trouble he sure has lots of scheduling conflicts preventing him from addressing those issues. Remember the vitriol hurled at George W. Bush for not wanting to terrify a group of third graders by running out of the room on 9/11. Where are those voices decrying Obama's lack of mentioning Libya.

The greatest fighting force in the world has not been sent to a forward area to project our force. We could easily put a carrier group in the Mediterranean Sea and also put some assets near the Persian Gulf. Yet, we haven't done any of that.

The Middle East is on fire from our allies to our enemies and we are sitting on our hands and hoping that nice things happen....really...We could with just a little effort likely turn what could potentially be a bad situation into a positive and create stability and democratic ideals in the region.

Yet we sit on our hands and weakly condemn violent force used by a man who was once the world's number one terrorist. A man who was responsible for ordering the bombing of the La Belle Disco in 1986; The Pan Am Lockerbie bombing in 1988. These two events killed nearly 300 people and injured almost as many.

I have said since he was elected that Obama was a second term for Jimmy Carter, but that isn't even a strong enough criticism. Carter was woefully inept to be sure, but I don't think he was trying to weaken the US intentionally, he was just overwhelmed by the job. Obama's foreign policy decisions make Carter look almost hawkish by comparison.

Watching the election results in 2008 as it became clear Obama was going to win I became very sad for the US. I wondered how bad things would get during what I tried to assure myself would be a single term. Now we are getting our answer.

Here's looking forward to the next Reagan, whoever he (or she) will be. Check out this Gallup Poll showing how bad Obama's doing across the country, looks like as of right now 2012 will be a Republican Landslide.