This White House is just so nasty and condescending. They make my skin crawl.
You’ve got to see this video of Jay Carney insisting that there are “no Constitutional rights at stake” in the HHS Mandate. Watching this makes me want to throw something across the room.
Yeah, the bishops are ALL WRONG. Yeah, the presidents of those colleges who are suing the administration are ALL WRONG. Every congressman and Senator who’ve signed onto legislation to stop the administration from trampling religious freedom to death are ALL WRONG. Just Obama and his sneering mouthpiece Jay Carney are right.
February 2, 2012 at 4:09 am
Anonymous, paying for murder is being an accessory to murder. That's usually a crime in this country, except in the case of the unborn.
The second crime, the one under consideration, is attempting to force a group of people to say it's not, in violation of their conscience, and then to deprive those same people of health benefits–because that is what will happen as a consequence. There again, if health insurance is ever federally funded, we Catholic employers won't have to worry, will we? This is about a lot more than knotted underwear!
February 2, 2012 at 4:12 am
Don't catch Jay Carney much—very slick of tongue–spits out multi-syballic, rhetoric as fast as I've ever heard it. I think I would rather picture him in a Little League baseball uniform than covering up the immoral policies of this administration that must be voted out, Dear God!
February 2, 2012 at 7:35 am
"exactly where is giving you options in your insurance a first amendment violation?"
Well, ask yourself this question: suppose the federal government (at the behest of the pork industry) passed a rule that required all grocery stores to sell pork, INCLUDING kosher or halal food markets owned by observant Jews or Muslims. The stores would be exempt ONLY if their clientele were limited strictly to fellow Jews or Muslims — if those stores were open to the general public, they would not be exempt.
By your logic, that's not a 1st Amendment violation because all it's doing is giving customers more options and Jewish or Muslim customers don't have to buy the pork if they don't want it. Never mind that non-Jewish/non-Muslim customers already have plenty of other places to go to buy pork. Wouldn't you think there was something seriously wrong with a rule like that?
February 2, 2012 at 9:05 am
2:28…after reviewing comments from the public…what comments from the public? Where are these comments? I'd like to see these comments from the public. I was never asked for my comments or opinion for that matter. And nobody I know was contacted for comments. This is total BS as usual.
February 2, 2012 at 9:17 am
Our Anonymous anti-Catholic Barry-shill sure is a talker. Doesn't seem to couple that with logic unfortunately. I'm waiting for him to toss in the old 'LOL PEDOFILEZ' like most of them do.
We're talking about the federal government forcing a private entity to pay for things they find objectionable in private insurance plans THEY pay for out of pocket.
Ah, heck why am I bothering? You can't reason with the irrational.
February 2, 2012 at 9:46 am
re: "Well, ask yourself this question: suppose the federal government (at the behest of the pork industry) passed a rule that required all grocery stores to sell pork, INCLUDING kosher or halal food markets owned by observant Jews or Muslims. "
What if in the Jewish or Muslim faith, touching pork would make them unclean? Why would they be forced to defile themselves just so as to provide their customers with the choice?
February 2, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Your right, their are some very sanctimonious people here.
And some of them even know how to spell.
February 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Where I come from a "carney" is someone who works in a carnival and tries to get the "rubes" to lose their money on a rigged game.
Not to make fun of someone's name, but I found this too appropos not to mention. 🙂