Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: yes to terrorism abetter, no to little sisters of the poor
Powerline ^ | 1-3-14 | Paul Mirengoff

Posted on 01/04/2014 9:33:46 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic

After five years of an increasingly radical presidency, it comes to this: the Obama administration has released Lynne Stewart, convicted of abetting a notorious terrorist, but is litigating in order to coerce a group of nuns who embody compassion. Isn’t this what Communists used to do when they came to power — release the “political prisoners” and harass the deeply religious?

President Obama’s supporters say he’s not out to get the Little Sisters of the Poor. To escape federal punishment that threatens to end to their charitable work they need only sign a piece of paper. But that’s also how it worked in Communist states. There too, the persecuted could sometimes get the government off of their back by signing away their principles.

Obama’s supporters also say that the administration released the terrorism-abetting Lynne Stewart not out of solidarity with her, out of “compassion.” But why compassion for someone who, without remorse, helped a bloodthirsty terrorist advance his murderous mission and not for The Little Sisters of the Poor? Leftist ideology has driven the administration’s moral compass seriously out of whack.

I’m not saying that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have taken American into Communist totalitarian territory. But they do seem to be nudging us down that terrible road.

(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; aca; blindsheik; deathpanels; holder; littlesisters; littlesistersofpoor; lsotp; lsp; lynnestewart; obama; obamacare; soniasotomayor; terrorism; tradecenter; zerocare

1 posted on 01/04/2014 9:33:46 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Stewart supposedly has terminal cancer..less that 12 months to live..What's the over/under on how long she last..3 years?..at least as long as the Lockerbie bomber did after he got released.

The DoJ should have made her make a public apology and admission of wrongdoing as a condition of her release..

2 posted on 01/04/2014 9:37:54 AM PST by ken5050 (This space available cheap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

There are 3 lights!!!

(special kudos to those who know what I mean)


3 posted on 01/04/2014 9:40:25 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Yes! to a rally on the Mall for illegal immigrants ...but,
NO! to veterans visiting their own memorial!
4 posted on 01/04/2014 9:44:50 AM PST by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Haven’t seen Bill Donahue of the Catholic League come out on this. He usually has something to say.


5 posted on 01/04/2014 9:47:15 AM PST by duckman (I'm part of the group pulling the wagon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
I’m not saying that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have taken American into Communist totalitarian territory.

Why not? It is true.

6 posted on 01/04/2014 9:47:50 AM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

They’re nudging us down the muslim road to hell.


7 posted on 01/04/2014 9:47:50 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Captain Picard moment?


8 posted on 01/04/2014 9:48:19 AM PST by MustKnowHistory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
I’m not saying that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have taken American into Communist totalitarian territory.

Why not? You wouldn't be the first, and you'd be right.

9 posted on 01/04/2014 9:49:28 AM PST by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckman

Bill Donahue may still be too stunned about what is going on. I know it leaves me speechless.


10 posted on 01/04/2014 9:49:29 AM PST by MustKnowHistory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

not news. he’s made it abundantly clear which side he is on.
(and it isn’t Christianity or America)


11 posted on 01/04/2014 9:55:35 AM PST by faithhopecharity (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Is this the same “Little Sisters of the Poor” that Doug Moe (my all time favorite Basketball player/coach) tried to get added to the Denver Nuggets schedule back in the 1980s?
12 posted on 01/04/2014 9:58:04 AM PST by Tupelo (I am feeling more like Philip Nolan every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MustKnowHistory

>>Captain Picard moment?<<

Ding ding — it meant that once he would say whatever his captor says he was no longer in control of his own will.

The same for the nuns.


13 posted on 01/04/2014 10:02:37 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: abclily
OBAMA DESPISES CATHOLICISM AS MUCH HE REVERES ISLAM

THE TOTALITARIAN TEMTATION

www.stolinsky.com ^ | 07-14-11 | stolinsky David C. Stolinsky July 14, 2011

This revealing term is the title of a book by the late French author Jean-François Revel. An equally revealing title by Revel is “How Democracies Perish.” Democracies do perish because of the totalitarian temptation. They are in the process of perishing even as we speak. Do you really believe that freedom can survive, if the government seizes the power to:

Raise taxes to confiscatory levels. Prominent Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman was asked at what level taxes would stifle economic activity. He was unable to name a specific rate, or admit that even a 100% tax rate would be destructive. But wasn’t slavery a 100% tax rate, with a guaranteed job, and free housing and health care thrown in? Not adequate housing or health care, of course, but it was free.

Print money without limit, thus degrading the value of the dollar; and borrow money without limit, thus using up credit that could have financed the growth of businesses and the hiring of new workers. And when this “stimulus” makes things worse, demand more.

Forbid Christmas trees and Christmas programs in public schools, but permit courses on Islam and observance of Mexican Day of the Dead. Why does “multiculturalism” teach respect for all cultures except our own? If you doubt this, look at the two photos of schools, one from 1978 and one current, and then tell me whether the status of women is improving or deteriorating under “multiculturalism.”

Forbid displaying the American flag and encourage displaying the Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo; in an American public school. As they say, divide and conquer.

Accustom people to monitoring what they say − and eventually what they think − by enforcing politically correct speech codes in schools and universities. Are people who accept this citizens or subjects?

Accustom people to letting the government make decisions about how their children are raised. In Los Angeles, chocolate milk ; even non-fat chocolate milk; has been banned from schools. In New York City schools, whole milk has been banned. But children who see the government making parental decisions for them will grow up. They are likely to do as their parents did − relinquish vital parenting duties to the government. Will such people be citizens or subjects?

Accustom people to being subservient by intrusive searches and groping at airports. We empower children by teaching them to refuse inappropriate touching, but the government disempowers them again by teaching them to allow officials to humiliate them in public. Will such people grow up to be citizens or subjects?

Pressure people to buy smaller cars to “save the planet” from “man-made global warming.” But smaller cars are more likely to kill their drivers and passengers in a crash. These people allow bureaucrats to endanger the lives of themselves and their loved ones for dubious reasons. Are such people citizens or subjects?

Force people to buy light bulbs that are expensive, give poor light, interfere with radio reception, and contain toxic mercury. And force people to buy low-flow toilets that flush inadequately. People become used to the government making everyday decisions for them. Are such people citizens or subjects?

Force people to accept a federally mandated health-care plan, and to depend on distant, faceless bureaucrats to make life-and-death decisions for themselves and their loved ones. Are such people citizens or subjects?. Force people to obey a 907-page health-care bill, and an Internal Revenue Code of over 7500 pages, plus untold thousands of pages of regulations based on these laws. It is impossible to understand gargantuan laws written in dense legalese. So in reality, people must obey thousands of bureaucrats who interpret and enforce these laws; often in an arbitrary or vindictive manner. Are such people citizens or subjects?

The Constitution occupies only four pages, but it was written by great men who wanted to enlighten and free us, not by little men and women who want to deceive and rule us. The problem is not only that these laws and regulations are unnecessarily complex, intrusive, and often counter-productive. The problem is also that these laws have a disheartening, intimidating effect on people. They turn citizens into subjects.

In a revealing statement, Energy Secretary Steven Chu declared, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” Chu was attempting to justify the ban on conventional light bulbs. He believes that the “elite” have the power to tell us poor, ignorant slobs what is best for us. No, this is not totalitarianism, but it is a signpost along that road. Will we see the sign or ignore it?

A related problem is the pervasive left-wing, pro-big government bias of schools, universities, and the mainstream media. Even the cartoon section of the newspaper has become politicized. Not just editorial cartoons − cartoons supposedly meant for entertainment are also often left-wing and anti-Christian. The lesson is that conservatives are angry whites, and Christians are ignorant Neanderthals.

Some non-religious people strive to control everything, in order to make this world a perfectly safe and risk-free paradise; because they don’t believe in the next world.

They can’t blame evil for human suffering; they don’t believe in evil. When President Bush called terrorist states an “axis of evil,” they objected not because they don’t believe these states are evil, but because they don’t believe anything is evil.

Leftists tend to see everything in economic terms, even 9/11. They assume that people hate us not because of religious fanaticism and an urge to murder “infidels.” They narcissistically assume that everyone is like them; interested only in material things. So they assume 9/11 must have been about oil.

Some people go so far as to admit that Al Qaeda may have carried out the attacks on 9/11, but it was really the CIA pulling the strings − for oil, of course, or other nefarious motives. That is, we attacked ourselves. The illusion of control is preserved, even in the face of devastating evidence to the contrary.

Why do leftists have more sympathy for extremist Muslims than for conservatives? Leftists and extremist Muslims share a compulsion to control people. The same compulsion is shared by environmentalists. Think about it. Leftists and environmentalists oppose our war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they oppose drilling for oil or gas, mining coal, and building dams or nuclear power plants. But who benefits? Middle Eastern despots keep their stranglehold on oil supplies, while local totalitarians dictate how we live our lives so we can “save the planet.” Where else can you get a deal like that?

Leftists and “greens” in bed with Muslim fanatics? Strange bedfellows? Maybe not so strange. They have a lot in common – contempt for freedom and for the sanctity of the individual, as well as an urge to punish “heretics.”

I heard a man remark that when his child learned to talk, the first word was “mama,” the second was “dada,” and the third word was “more.” That sums up liberalism nicely; “mama” to take care of me when I don’t feel well, “dada” to give me an allowance I can spend on things he approves, and “more.” More taxes. More debt. More laws. More regulations. More bureaucrats. More entitlements. More dependency. More of what hasn’t worked. But less individuality. Less innovation. Less productivity. And much less freedom.

14 posted on 01/04/2014 10:14:30 AM PST by Dqban22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; GOPJ; NYer; The Mayor; Salvation; Mrs. Don-o
Obamatons are having a good laugh over this---b/c O/Care's contraceptive mandate goes back to Sandra Fluck saying she needs it.....free.

She told Congress she spends $3000 a month to get herself equipped for serial sex activities.

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

REWARD OFFERED---Anyone who can produce evidence that Fluck ever had sex with a sperm producer gets a roll in the hay w/ a rubber-sheathed Democrat.

15 posted on 01/04/2014 10:24:20 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Obama and his lawless administration scares the heck out of me. It boggles the mind how Obama can release Lynn Stewart while harassing the Nuns.
16 posted on 01/04/2014 10:29:20 AM PST by Chgogal (Obama "hung the SEALs out to dry, basically exposed them like a set of dog balls..." CMH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sandra Fluke: Birth Control is Just Like a Blood Transfusion...or Something
Townhall ^ | Katie Pavlich / FR Posted November 27, 2013 by Morgana

Infamous former Georgetown Law student and now social justice attorney Sandra Fluke is back in the news thanks to the Supreme Court agreeing to take up a case surrounding the employer contraception mandate in Obamacare.

In case you need a reminder, Fluke is the woman who testified before Congress in 2012 about how birth control should be paid for by someone else because it can cost a female student "$3,000 during law school."

Last night on MSNBC, Fluke argued that employers cannot be exempted from the contraception mandate in Obamacare because that would mean they could also opt. out of paying for insurance that covers blood transfusions.

This isn't the first time Fluke has compared contraception to life saving medical procedures that have nothing to do with religious beliefs. She once said that companies opposing the contraception mandate in Obamacare on religious grounds is the same thing as opposing Leukemia coverage.

VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYFmrkUvzQ&feature=player_embedded

============================================

PHONY AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL It was a laugh-a-thon b/c The Fluke obviously got a radical redo----wearing blush and lip gloss---and lots of jewelry---hoping to convince people she really slept w/ men (there were questions raised---cackle).

She was obviously coached by a public appearance specialist---nodding and smiling, looking left to right before she spoke.

This was a dramatic change from her past public appearances---drab-looking with no makeup--dressed like a schoolmarm---terror-stricken before the mic.

I hear she had a friend taking down names of sex-starved guys storming the station---dying to get her in the sack.

ROTFLOL.

17 posted on 01/04/2014 10:30:24 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Last night on MSNBC, Fluke argued that employers cannot be exempted from the contraception mandate in Obamacare because that would mean they could also opt. out of paying for insurance that covers blood transfusions.

This isn't the first time Fluke has compared contraception to life saving medical procedures that have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

I believe Christian Scientists object to blood transfusions on religious grounds.

18 posted on 01/04/2014 10:37:18 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
I’m not saying that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have taken American into Communist totalitarian territory.

Why not, Paul? Why not?

19 posted on 01/04/2014 10:39:44 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I know Jehovah's Witnesses do. I served as General Counsel for a children's hospital for over two years and frequently dealt with this issue. Their belief was based on Acts 15:20:

"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

Fourteen was the age at which a child was allowed to make the medical decision on his or her own. Before that age, if the child's life or seriously bodily injury was at issue, the hospital was required by state law to seek a legal guardian for the child to make the medical decision on the grounds that the parent(s) were unfit.

It was not an easy thing to make that argument in family court when I could see how much the family cared for the child.

20 posted on 01/04/2014 11:02:17 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Their objections extended to medications derived from blood products, as well as to blood transfusions.


21 posted on 01/04/2014 11:05:00 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Obama vs. the Little Sisters

NRO January 7, 2014

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/367712/print

By the bizarre logic of the White House, the nuns are part of the “war on women.”

By Rich Lowry

It takes some doing to get embroiled in a court fight with nuns who provide hospice care for the indigent. Amazingly, the Obama administration has managed it.

Its legal battle with the Little Sisters of the Poor is the logical consequence of Obamacare’s conscience-trampling contraception mandate. The requirement went into effect January 1, but Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a New Year’s Eve injunction against enforcing it on the Little Sisters.

They are Catholic nuns who follow the doctrinal teachings of the church and therefore oppose contraceptive and abortive drugs and sterilization, all of which Obamacare mandates that employers cover in their insurance plans.

Given the ongoing delays, waivers, and exemptions associated with the law, it would seem natural simply to let the Little Sisters go about their business of pouring out their hearts for the sick and dying.

But this is a fight the administration won’t walk away from. For this White House, it is a matter of principle. And the principle is that the state trumps the convictions of people with deep-held religious beliefs.

When the contraception mandate first caused an uproar, the administration contrived a so-called accommodation for religiously oriented groups (actual churches have always been exempt). But whoever crafted it had a sick sense of humor. The very same document by which a group registers its moral objection to contraceptives and abortifacients also authorizes the insurer to cover them for the group’s employees. What the accommodation gives with one hand, it takes away with the other.

The Little Sisters refuse to sign such a document. They happen to be in an unusual situation because they get their insurance from another religiously affiliated organization opposed to contraceptives and abortifacients, so it may be that these drugs don’t get covered no matter what. But the Little Sisters can’t be sure of this — the regulations are complicated and subject to change.

Regardless, they don’t want to sign. They want no part in authorizing coverage of contraceptive or abortive drugs. Enthusiasts for the mandate scoff. What the nuns are objecting to, they insist, is just a piece of paper.

Just a piece of paper? So is a mortgage. So is a wedding certificate. So is a will. How would the board of directors of NARAL react if the government forced them to sign a “piece of paper” tacitly condemning contraception or abortion? Would they shrug it off as a mere formality?

The Little Sisters deserve deference. Their religious sensibility is different from — and, one hazards to say, more finely tuned than — that of the mandarins of President Barack Obama’s administrative state. In a dispute over what their conscience tells them to do or not to do, the Little Sisters are better positioned to know than anyone else.

Besides, who is harmed if the Little Sisters don’t provide contraception coverage? They are a voluntary organization. They aren’t imposing their views on anyone. Who, for that matter, is harmed if a secular organization run by people with moral objections to contraceptives and abortifacients refuses to cover them? Employees are still free to go out on their own and get contraceptives, which are widely available. If this sounds like an outlandish imposition, it is what people managed to do throughout American history all the way up to last week.

The contraception mandate has always had a strong ideological impetus. Opponents of the mandate “want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius notoriously declared in 2011. “We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war.” By this bizarre way of thinking, a small congregation of nuns that cares for the most vulnerable is somehow complicit in a war on women’s health.

Instead of respecting the moral views of the Little Sisters, the administration hopes to grind them under foot by force of law. For shame.


22 posted on 01/07/2014 6:26:11 PM PST by Dqban22 (Oaqrt 1))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dqban22

Excellent point-—this is O’s “war on women.”{


23 posted on 01/08/2014 9:33:24 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1

“I Am A Little Sister Of The Poor”

Burt Prelutsky . com ^ | 01/08/2014 | Burt Prelutsky

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3109613/posts

IN ONE OF THE FEW HOLLYWOOD EPICS that wasn’t entirely wretched, there was a stirring moment in “Spartacus” when the Roman general stands before the slaves huddled on the ground and demands that Spartacus, the leader of the revolt, stand and identify himself. As Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) begins to get up in order that his fellow prisoners not be tortured on his behalf, the others rise, each of them insisting “I am Spartacus.”

I think that when Obama and his thugs demand that an order of nuns or anyone else who holds sincere religious beliefs caves to the power of the state, it behooves us to stand and declare, whatever our religion or gender, that we are all Sisters of the Poor.

Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. This administration would have Christians betray their convictions for a handful of birth control pills and publically-funded abortions.

The world has never lacked for those who identified with Pontius Pilate, but it is a rare occurrence in America. In the past, even our worst presidents were only lousy in the way that politicians usually are. That is to say, they tended to yield to greed and lust more than they should have, but until Obama came along, they didn’t remind most people of those tinhorn rulers of banana republics.

Obama lies more than any person I’ve ever known, in or out of the White House. He divides people along racial, religious and economic, lines for solely partisan reasons. And while he constantly whines about income inequality, carrying on as if Karl Marx was his personal speechwriter, he spends millions of our tax dollars on family vacations and is never happier than when he’s addressing his supporters at $35,000-a-seat fundraisers.

Speaking of Obama, it galls me that when an ex-president dies, no matter how shabby his administration may have been, the flags fly at half-mast as if we’re all supposed to mourn his demise. But when a great composer, medical researcher or inventor passes, he or she is lucky to muster a couple of paragraphs on the obituary page.

The reason that I and many others believe that the president should come from the ranks of governors and not be a member of Congress is because the job calls for executive experience. The three branches of government, after all, are the executive, the judicial and the legislative. Being the president means being the chief executive of the 315,000,000 member corporation known as the United States of America.

But I wager there isn’t another boardroom in the nation that has so many incompetent nincompoops seated around the table. Obama, Biden, Kerry, Hagel, Holder and Sebelius, are people who have never worked a day anywhere but a law office, a college campus or Congress. Ivory towers don’t prepare anyone to do anything but go through life confusing theory with reality.

Here in California, the State Supreme Court recently granted an illegal alien the right to practice law. At first I was outraged. Are these people insane? Then it occurred to me that of course they’re insane, but if these nitwits are entitled to practice law, why the heck shouldn’t Sergio Garcia?

After all, we have justices sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court today who have announced that they wouldn’t advise emerging nations to adopt our Constitution as their own. For that matter, Barack Obama has gone on record saying that the major flaw in our Constitution is that it doesn’t deal with the redistribution of wealth. Is it any wonder then that in spite of swearing his allegiance to the sacred document, he ignores what it says with unseemly regularity – things like states’ rights and the separation of powers – any damn time he feels like it?

My only problem with the Constitution is that it prevents the foreign-born from aspiring to the presidency. When fewer and fewer Americans seem to appreciate the fact they were lucky enough to be born here, it’s far likelier that someone who came here from Cuba, China or one of the countries formerly under the Soviet boot, would more closely resemble the Gipper than the Gypper.

Finally, after watching TV weather reporters spend the last 60 years bundled up in the middle of storms and tsunamis, I have to ask: Why? If I had the job, I’d sit by a window, though not too close, sipping on a cup of cocoa, watching cows and trees flying by, and say, “Boy, I’m sure glad I’m not out there. That’s some stinky weather.”


24 posted on 01/08/2014 11:26:52 AM PST by Dqban22 (IVINIC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dqban22

I love Burt since I ran across him years ago and asked if I could post one of his essays on FR. For a Hollywood guy he is stand up and says how it is.


25 posted on 01/08/2014 11:42:19 AM PST by Little Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dqban22

Nice post. I used to like sitting next to a window and sipping cocoa. Watching it snow. BUT I never wore a onesie and dreamed about health care while doing so. Heck I don’t even know what a onesie is.


26 posted on 01/08/2014 5:23:23 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson