Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

The New Morality: By Executive Order


TSUNAMI ALERT

The New Morality: By Executive Order

As TSUNAMI MEDIA warned before Obama took office, and as all are now aware, the foundation of the Axelrod-Pelosi strategy has been all along to generate as much chaos as possible in the 1st 100 days of their regime. Sad to say, so far they seem to be succeeding at that. Traditional Congressional procedures which protect forethought and transparency have been thrown out the window. In the meantime, while executive orders, simultaneously, slide through under the radar, MainStreamMedia fulfills its assignment of diverting public attention from the rapid-fire transmutation of all that America stands for.

There is no better example of this strategy in action than Obama’s covert exclusion of the “Conscience Clause” which protects the integrity of health care workers. While this issue has been positioned to be perceived as a matter of concern only to adamant right wingers it is not. Hidden by a cloud-cover of government verbiage, the excluded Conscience Clause information can only be found under this title: “Rescission of the Regulation  entitled “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.”

It’s title, alone, stands out as a ‘red alert’ to everyone interested in the preservation of our personal liberties. It basically states that all who believe in a woman’s right to abort are free to support it – while those who do not personally support that stand are not only mistaken – they can be dismissed from their employment if they do not agree. This makes exclusion of the Conscience Clause totally a Federal regulation without any conscience of its own. To demand that health care professionals participate in a federally sanction to kill unwanted babies – no matter what the stage of their development is, in the eyes of many, no less than government sanctioned murder.

It is a well-known fact by now that Obama, as an IL state senator, who was often absent from voting on important issues, gave the only vote in support of leaving viable infants to die on the table rather than providing them with medical attention or life support. One does not need to be a “right to lifer” to abhor such a policy. Many “pro-choice’ advocates agree that aborting a full-term healthy infant and  leaving them to die unattended is a long stretch away from a woman’s right to privacy and/or protection of her mental health. Its safe to say that if the criterion for who has a right to live were based on protecting our individual mental health, we’d each have a list of folks whom we’d rather see removed from the planet.

In the light of day, then, Obama’s recession of the Conscience Clause does not bode well for any who believe that no one – in any profession – should be forced by the Federal government to act beyond the bounds of their conscience or suffer loss of employment. The broader issue of tumult caused by this exclusion suits other purposes of Obama’s regime well – control of the health care industry by forcing a show-down which could, literally, shut down Catholic hospitals, where current standards do not support the practice of abortion. If a woman has a right to an abortion, regardless of the  stage of development of the infant she is carrying, why can she not equally choose a facility that condones her decision? In fact, the only objection to the conscience clause that can be located says it’s unfair for a consumer to not be able to buy birth control pills at every US pharmacy. Common sense would say that is a pharmacy owner doesn’t want to sell birth control products, it’s his or her right to so diminish their store’s revenue. There’s plenty of drug stores that sell these products, without inconvenience to the consumer.

In sum, the implications of the Conscience Clause exclusion are not about the Right to Life or a Women’s privacy at all. This is about not just the government’s Right to Kill- it goes further by insisting that all U.S. health care workers are required to commit what they consider murder – or leave their profession altogether. The deeper agenda behind this exclusion speaks to Obama’s clear, ongoing intention to eradicate the role of Judeo-Christian ethics in our society. Federal actions of this type are consistent with historic agendas of prior fascist dictators who believe that all religious worship competes with the state, instead, establishing what is moral and right.

If you believe U.S. health care practitioners should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to participate in Federally funded abortions because, as Americans, they have a right to choose their profession and how they conduct it, send your email comments to Regulations.gov

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648090229f

If you want to read more about this issue first, go to:

Document ID

HHS-OPHS-2009-0001-0001

at

http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&N=0&Ntt=0991-AB49&sid=12078CBEF750

Comments sent by the close of day (Eastern Time) will be included in the Department of Health and Family

Services report to the Executive branch.

April 8, 2009 Posted by | Abortion, Political Correctness | Leave a comment

Charming Snakes


Ralph Peters exercised extreme clarity while writing about religious extremism in this article in the New York Post: Petting The Snakes. After reading these brief excerpts, click the link and read the entire article, paying particular attention to paragraphs including italic emphasis.

Of course, we didn’t take faith’s power seriously. We still don’t. Washington continues, frantically, to deny that belief has anything to do with religious terrorism.

To understand what Muslims believe and their belief affects their behavior, we need to become with the source of their belief:  the Qur’an. The link at the end of the previous sentence goes to the Muslim Student Association site at U.S.C. It displays three parallel translations of Islam’s canon of scripture.  If you prefer a single translation with the translator’s explanation of the text, try the work of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, one of the three provided by the M.S.A.

Fired by visions of serving an angry god, the terrorists are sure that they’re bound to win, that all those of weaker belief will fall before them. Nothing short of death will make them quit.

The key concept in that  excerpt is triumphalism, derived from belief in Allah’s promises of victory and reward. Read Know Thine Enemy (part 11) for a glimpse into the roots of Islam’s  triumphalism.

When dealing with those who believe they’re on a mission from their god, our cult of negotiations plays into their hands. They’ll break any agreement, when the time is right. A deal isn’t a deal. Unbelievers have no standing.

9:1-3 pretty well take care of that issue. Moe made a ten year treaty with Mekkah when he was weak, and broke it after three years when he had amassed an army.

April 8, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, Politics, Religion of Peace | , , , | Leave a comment

Free Listening


Peter Ferrara Rush’s fans have rights, too quotes a question asked by Justice Scalia during oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

“Do you think that there’s a possibility that the First Amendment interest is greater when what the government is trying to stifle is not just a speaker who wants to say something but also a hearer who wants to hear what the speaker has to say?”

The right of free speech implies a right  to listen. Without listeners, the speech would be wasted.  In the case of talk radio, the listeners have a many to one ratio. The rights of large numbers of people are threatened by proposed censorship.

Peter Ferrara points out other cases in which the same concept has been raised. Will the Supreme Court up hold those  precedents? Will a majority of the court side with Justice Scalia?

I am not convinced that we can depend on either contingency coming to pass. We need to apply maximal political pressure to prevent the passage and enforcement of censorship laws and regulations. Representatives and Senators must be made to fear for their jobs if they support censorship, its our first line of defense.   The initial case against McCain-Feingold confirmed the magnitude of the risk we take in relying on the last line of defense.

April 8, 2009 Posted by | Censorship, free speech, Politics | , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: