So, Why Doesn't Rush Call Bristol Palin and Offer Words of Encouragement?

polifrog



Bristol Palin:

Dear President Obama,

You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about [...]

out

Obama's Catholic Problem is not an Amish Problem...

polifrog





The administration continues its push to marginalize Catholicism:

In announcing the rule for college-based health plans, HHS said it would follow the same system for enforcing the rule on religious colleges and universities that object to purchasing sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients for its students that President Barack Obama has proposed for enforcing the regulation on religious non-profit organizations in the coverage for their employees: The insurer will be forced to provide the sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to the students free of charge.

“Under the final rule, students will gain the same consumer protections other people with individual market insurance have, like a prohibition on lifetime limits and coverage of preventive services without cost sharing,” HHS said in a press release. “In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer.”

But, the Amish get a pass:

The Amish are exempt from the entire health care reform law. So are members of Medi-Share, a program of Christian Care Ministry. Yet, when the Catholic Church asks for a religious exemption from just one regulation issued under the law – the mandate that all employers, including religious institutions, must pay for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs – the Administration balks.

The government respects the First Amendment that guarantees the right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs, but only to a point. In the health care law it picks and chooses which beliefs it respects. The Amish do not believe in insurance, and the government understands. Christian Care Ministry believes people should form a religious community and pay medical bills for one another, and the government says okay. Yet when the Catholic Church opposes being forced to pay for services that violate its beliefs, the Administration says “tough.”

out

Obama's Radical Effort to Push Religion From the Public Square...

polifrog





On Jan 20, the Obama administration announced that even religious based hospitals, universities and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.

Why?

The answer is short. The Obama administration wishes to displace religious organizations in every and all possible public areas by forcing religious organizations to be faced with the choice of crossing governance, crossing their faith, or bowing out of the areas of our public square that are effected by this decision.

If the religious are to stay true to their faith and stay true to government they will ultimately be forced to retreat from engaging with their own society under this decision.

Although it is not only through hospitals, universities, and charities that religions expose themselves to those who may not be exposed to them, it is one that the statists among us wish to end. Statists understand that the marginalization of religion grows dependency on governance.

What we are witnessing with the introduction of this regulation is our atheocratic state in action. What is atheocracy? If is, of course, the opposite of theocracy. Just as there are theocratic states like Iran, there athocratic states like N. Korea and China.

Unfortunately each type of governance claims its own form of piety as a pretense for non pious rule.

That piety may come in different forms, such as religious piety (theocracy) or duty bound piety (atheocracy). Whereas the former’s power is circumscribed by the religion that empowers those who rule via a religious citizenry, the latter enjoys no such restraint, as duty bound piety is piety toward self.

The truer danger, then, is the atheocratic regime which is bounded by no wrong. History points to this. Pick your theocracy then pick your athocracy and compare the suffering under each. Based on sheer number of dead no theocracy can match the accomplishments of the atheocratic regimes of China, Russia, Nazi Germany, or N. Korea.

Does that make a theocracy desirable? No. But it is preferable to the atheocratic rejection of all religion.

There is a third way.

It is one that requires no false piety, as it is a choice that does not adopt a single religion for empowerment and it is a choice that does not reject all religion leaving only self in the form of duty from which rule is empowered.

That third way, secularism, is the inclusion of all the various religions or the lack thereof as legitimate voices informing a representative democracy.

Our nation originally chose option three, but unfortunately that third way requires a degree of tolerance the intolerant atheists and leftists among us find intolerable and it is they who are slowly forcing us toward the greatest threat to liberty, an atheocracy.





out

Michelle’s “Excellent Adventure”: Another sign Obama doesn’t really want to be President...

polifrog


Via Pajamas Media, Roger Simon:

Michelle’s $375,000 Spanish vacation — with the Daily Mail dubbing her a “modern-day Marie Antoinette” — is further proof of my thesis. What man who wanted to be re-elected (or see his party do well in November) would let his wife go off on such an “excellent adventure” in these economic times? Of course no one denies the right of people to have vacations – I’m coming to the end of one myself on my beloved Bainbridge Island — but closing Mediterranean beaches while booking 60-plus rooms in a five star Marbella hotel for her entourage? It is beyond tone deaf, perhaps to the level of subconscious (or even deliberate) self-sabotage.

At the very least, something most peculiar is going on. The first lady goes off on a jaunt worthy of 18th Century aristocracy at the very moment of her husband’s birthday. Is somebody trying to tell us something? Is somebody trying to tell her spouse something? Or vice-versa? Who knows? You won’t find out in the mainstream media — that’s for sure. They don’t even bother to check Obama’s college records. Perhaps the National Enquirer is on the case. They may be the only hope.

If I were still a member of the Democratic Party, I would be most concerned. What is going on in the White House seems to be so disconnected from the reality of our country — with some indicating real unemployment at a staggering 22% — as to be teetering on the brink of a pyschological disorder. And in this case that disorder would be a folie a deux of some sort because Barack and Michelle appear to be colluding in it in some way, whatever the state of their relationship. And that disconnect — between them and the American people — is growing.

Why is this happening?

He goes on to propose two answers to the question. The first is narcissism, the second and far more simple answer, is that they just assume that there will be no second term.

Polifrog wonders if this is not an argument against term limits.



out