Thursday, August 29, 2013

More liberal hypocrisy: Attacking Syria ok, but not Iraq

Despite the fact that both houses of Congress and the U.N.  passed resolutions in favor of going to war with Iraq, liberals have been trying to convince us ever since that George W. Bush started the war illegally. But now that President Obama needs to save face (thanks to his “red line in the sand” threat last year regarding Syria) he is in the process of committing the US to unilateral military action in Syria without consent from Congress or the UN. Of course, liberals are cheering him all the way.

They conveniently forget (or assume we will forget) that in 2007, then Senator Obama said to a Boston Globe reporter, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” 

And also in 2007, Vice President Joe Biden said, “the President has no constitutional take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”

Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “undeniable evidence” that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. But no evidence of this has been found. In fact, the U.N. doesn’t know who did what to whom and is now pleading with Obama to hold off on taking any action for now. But it seems Obama is willing to make the situation worse just for the sake of showing some mishapen form of a backbone. As of now, he is just waiting for U.N. teams to leave Syria to make his move - without Congress, without ally support (e.g. Britain just backed out) and without even talking to the American people about it.

Obama is saying that, on grounds of humanity, he has a moral imperative for taking action against Syria. If that's the case, then he'd have even more reason to support our having gone into Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had killed hundreds of thousands of people, including his own brother-in-law, whom he personally ordered to have killed in a wood chipper...feet first. 

But beyond any moral reasons, Syria is embroiled in a civil war, which has no bearing on our national security whatsoever. And unlike Hussein, who was removed from power by our actions, Syria's Assad would remain in power and the rebels most likely behind the gas attacks in Syria would be emboldened further.

In all of this, Obama is hoping we won’t notice one other obvious thing (in addition to the clear un-constitutionality of this should he try to act without permission): that by taking military action against Syria, Obama would be joining forces with al-Qaeda - who is a bitter enemy of Syria. In other words, the very people who murdered so many thousands of Americans on 9/11 will be receiving our help to attack one of their other enemies.

Of course the mainstream media will not point out these things. They also won’t have the intellectual honesty to ask a key question: if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? We had congressional support -including Hilary Clinton's, John Kerry's and Joe Biden's "yes" votes -- to go into Iraq. Obama is now courting Congress to get support for his  desire to attack Syria. If he does not receive this approval - and he shouldn't - the question remains whether he will act anyway. 

Whether Obama receives permission or not, I wonder if Obama supporters will stop excoriating Bush for going into Iraq. We'll see. And if Obama does strike against Syria --without approval from Congress -- then, in Biden's own words, we should "move to impeach him." 

Regardless of what happens, all of this illuminates the pressing need for our own country to gain energy independence. The fewer reasons we have to be embroiled in the Middle East, the better. For some reason though, Obama seems a bit too interested in being involved and for all the wrong reasons.

Did the White House help plan the Syrian chemical attack? 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

We shouldn't have to sue government for our own rights

This past Friday, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction banning the enforcement of the HHS Mandate in a lawsuit filed by The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  TMLC filed the lawsuit on behalf of two brothers, Shaun and Michael Willis, one a Catholic and the other a Protestant, and their family-owned law firm, Willis Law, located in Kalamazoo, MI.

The lawsuit is one of several legal challenges the TMLC has mounted on behalf of committed Christians in direct opposition to the HHS Mandate promulgated by the Obama Administration.  The HHS Mandate, which refers to a set of regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services, forces employers to include coverage for abortion and abortion inducing pharmaceuticals as well as related counseling and education as part of employer sponsored health care plans, regardless of any moral or religious objections that the employer may have.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “This case is about the religious freedom of Christians to peaceably practice their faith free from government coercion.  In direct violation of one of America’s founding principles, the Federal Government knowingly forces those who believe in the sanctity of human life to choose between following the law and following their conscience.”  In this particular case, the Department of Justice did not oppose TMLC’s motion for the entry of the Preliminary Injunction.

Both Shaun and Michael Willis are devout pro-life Christians with a deep religious conviction that abortion and abortifacients are gravely immoral practices which result in the destruction of innocent life.

Prior to the HHS Mandate, the Willis brothers were able to exclude coverage for abortion and abortifacients. However, these exclusions now put the Willis Brothers in violation of the HHS Mandate; a violation that would have cost them over half a million dollars in fines per year had they not obtained an injunction. The preliminary injunction now allows the Willis Brothers to continue providing health insurance to their employees that is in not in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs and conscience.

For the Willis brothers, being forced by the government to fund, promote and assist others in obtaining services which destroy innocent life is tantamount to being a participant in a gravely immoral practice.

The Willis brothers’ Christian values are evident in their support for multiple faith- based organizations including Kalamazoo Right to Life, Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center, and Young Life Kalamazoo.

The lawsuit claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act while also challenging the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech and the Establishment Clause.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas Perez, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Jack Lew, Secretary of the Department of Treasury; and their respective departments. 
[Source: TMLC] 

As long as women have legal access to contraception and abortion on their own, should anyone be forced against their beliefs to provide these things to women? Not in a free country, they shouldn’t. The question is, are we still a free country?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Friday, August 23, 2013

New law bans right to choose wanted therapy

New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie just took away a teenager's freedom by signing his name to a new law that bans all licensed counselors in New Jersey from helping minor teens dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.

Sure, Christie - who wants to be your president in 2016 - scored major points with the gay rights movement by doing this, but if your young loved one were struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction - an attraction that contradicted your child's desire to live life according to deeply held Biblical values - shouldn't he or she have the right to seek a counselor's help? And shouldn't a parent have the right to seek that help on their child's behalf?

Well, too bad, says Christie. Professional counseling for Christian teens is now banned in New Jersey. Christie has tried to claim he's just doing what the science says to protect children from licensed Christian counseling. But isn't denying a person from receiving help if they do not want the same-sex attraction nothing short of indoctrination to the homosexual lifestyle? At the very least, it's a violation of patient rights. 

Even the American Psychological Association (APA) -- which opposes counseling based on the idea that homosexuality is a disorder -- admits that "patients have a right to self-determination, and that sexual orientation change efforts sometimes help people."

Consider people like Jeff Bennion, a man who struggled with same-sex attraction for many years, but who's now happily married with a wife and child. In a New York Post Op-Ed, Bennion wrote, “The client’s right to determine the course of his own therapy is a touchstone of modern psychotherapy. So the effort to deny people access to this therapy not only infringes on my right to self-determination, it violates the ethical standards of every major mental-health association.”

Prof. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, also chimed in on the topic when he wrote an article for USA Today defending the right of those individuals with same-sex attractions who desire therapy to pursue it.

In his op-ed, he wrote, “Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment.”

Those with a tendency toward knee-jerk reactions will probably just see this push-back to the law as homophobia, or an attack on gay rights. But those people need to start thinking about things a little more deeply and truthfully in order to see the big picture. Bottom line is, a government figure is taking away an individual's rights to get help that he or she wants. Think about that, please. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

What's really behind ObamaCare delays?

Democrats are planning on using the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to help them win the 2014 mid-term elections, as if it's something to be proud of. But if it's so great, then why does the Obama administration feel it's necessary to delay so many key parts of its implementation until after the elections? Simple. Because it knows if this disastrous monstrosity is in full effect before the elections, Democrats have much less chance of victory at the polls.

While some parts of ObamaCare are already in effect (e.g. higher taxes on medical devices, the costs of which are passed down to consumers), the vast majority of it was scheduled to go into full effect in January 2014. But with the November elections in mind, the first key provision of ObamaCare - drastic cuts to Medicare - is being delayed until after the elections.

This way, unsuspecting senior citizens at the voting polls in November 2014 will still have no idea how their access to healthcare is about to be severely blocked. To Democrats, what's a few million senior citizens without lifesaving medical treatment? It's not their lives that are priceless. It's their votes.

The next provision delayed until after the elections is the employer mandate that requires job creators with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance to all workers. It's a magnificent expense that many small business simply cannot afford. To get around this, many small businesses say they will have to let workers go or simply stop hiring.

This hurts both job seekers and the employers who would probably rather invest in and expand their business -- and jobs -- but cannot afford to do so under the strangling costs of ObamaCare. But delaying this requirement until after November 2014 buys Democrats more time to hide the disastrous impact that ObamaCare will have. Fewer disgruntled people means more votes for Democrats, and they know it.

Next came the announcement that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. This way anyone can just say they cannot afford insurance on their own and be eligible for help from the government without having to prove they're in need of help. How great is that? Who wouldn't vote for such a government come November 2014?

Finally, now we have just been told that another highly expensive provision of ObamaCare will be delayed until after the elections: its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles.

Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.

Sure that sounds great, right? But how do you think the insurance companies will pay for these limitless benefits? Through massive increases in our premiums, of course.

Denial of these facts does not make them any less true. Whether we get hit with ObamaCare's ugly truths before or after the November elections, it is still something the vast majority of us will be affected by. And even if you support ObamaCare for now, ask yourself honestly - if there's nothing to hide, why is the left doing everything it can to delay ObamaCare until after the elections?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.