Skip to comments.Obama: yes to terrorism abetter, no to little sisters of the poor
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. Isnt this what Communists used to do when they came to power release the political prisoners and harass the deeply religious?
President Obamas supporters say hes 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 thats 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.
Obamas 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 administrations moral compass seriously out of whack.
Im 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 ...
The DoJ should have made her make a public apology and admission of wrongdoing as a condition of her release..
There are 3 lights!!!
(special kudos to those who know what I mean)
Haven’t seen Bill Donahue of the Catholic League come out on this. He usually has something to say.
Why not? It is true.
They’re nudging us down the muslim road to hell.
Captain Picard moment?
Why not? You wouldn't be the first, and you'd be right.
Bill Donahue may still be too stunned about what is going on. I know it leaves me speechless.
not news. he’s made it abundantly clear which side he is on.
(and it isn’t Christianity or America)
>>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.
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 wasnt 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 dont believe in the next world.
They cant blame evil for human suffering; they dont believe in evil. When President Bush called terrorist states an axis of evil, they objected not because they dont believe these states are evil, but because they dont 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 dont 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 hasnt worked. But less individuality. Less innovation. Less productivity. And much less freedom.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why not, Paul? Why not?
"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.