Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 02/08/2012 5:44:57 PM PST by chessplayer
Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger shockingly stated, Wednesday, that "maybe the Founders were wrong" to guarantee religious liberty. Henneberger appeared on Hardball to discuss the Obama administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control in health care.
Discussing the battle between the left and those who see it as a threat to the First Amendment, she declared, " Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment but that is what they did and I don't think we have to choose here. " Henneberger's awkward comment came as she attempted to defend the Catholic Church. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Maybe she has hair on her back.
I’m sure this commie would be happier if the Founding Fathers had put in a provision that all our rights were secondary to the interests of the State. Kind of like the Constitution of the good old USSR.
In order to understand the so-called "progressives'" in the Administration and the media (who are, in fact, regressive in their ideology and policies) which promotes their cause, especially as it pertains to their Trojan Horses called "women's health" and Planned Parenthood, perhaps a reading of the following excerpts might be instructive. Please note that the writer quoted below refers to "progressives" as advancing freedom, which is not the cause of those who go under that banner in America today.
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them.
"All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Leftists - communists & national socialists - like Islamics and other totalitarian ideologues, are incompatable with the US Constitution and our way of life.
To her I would say that it wasn't the founders who were wrong, it was her parents who were wrong for birthing her in a free country.
Liberals shouldn’t be allowed to breed.
Don’t know how much clearer I can be.
“Henneberger’s awkward comment came as she attempted to defend the Catholic Church. “
One can only imagine what people who don’t defend the Catholics want to say.
Typical leftist arrogance...
Funny when Bush introduced policies to secure the nation from terrorism, the folks at the Wash. Post, and other liberal rags, waved the constitution in our faces and told us how Bush was shredding it—without showing in any way how he had done so. Now Obama truly does shred the constitution, and it’s “Maybe Obama’s right and the framers were wrong.” If Obama proposed to end free speech, the MSM Obama lapdogs would find a way to justify it.
The Srs. at Holy Cross must be shaking their heads in shame over what you have become.
Perhaps the Founders were also wrong about protecting Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, as well...
...and to think that she gets paid for such twaddle...
Perhaps allowing her Freedom of Speech was their first mistake?
It needs a qualifier.
Must have an IQ above 30 and be able to indicate which direction is up....
This shows why the US is in danger of full-out sharia.
Something that gets lost in all this is that Muslim women do not have abortions; that is enforced literally by the sword. The only babies that get killed through abortion are infidel babies.
Margaret Sanger was a white-supremacist colleague of Hitler. She told the German Nazis that they were going about things wrong - that if you simply presented the permission to either prevent or kill your own offspring as if it was a great favor to Blacks (the ones whe was interested in exterminating) they would commit genocide on their own race. She said you just have to get some charismatic Black preacher (like Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, etc) to say how having babies was a “punishment” (gag) that holds them down and only the white people would want to deprive them of the right to choose when to be a parent.... and the stupid Blacks would be falling all over themselves to exterminate their race for you.
That’s why Planned Parenthood targeted Blacks.
Well.... the same people who deny that the Holocaust even happened want to exterminate not only the Jews but the Christians also. That includes both Muslims and communists - which have both been allies of both George Soros and his puppet, Obama.
The worldwide caliphate doesn’t come exclusively - or even most often - because of jihad, but because of population. Muslim women have babies; infidels self-exterminate through abortion. That means that soon there are more Muslims voting than infidels, and in that way even such pesky things as Constitutions can be defeated by Islam/sharia.
Gotta go practice accompanying my daughter on the piano. There’s much more that could be said. But this all ties into the push for Islam, forcing all religions to bow to a state religion of sharia, and pushing infidels into dhimmitude (paying a tax that Muslims don’t have to pay, which is exactly the case with Obamacare).
LOL. I’m sure this stupid bimbo would have been real happy to have a state church in America, which is what would have happened if we didn’t have a freedom of religion provision in the Constitution.
That pesky constitution “rearing its ugly head” again,thwarting the valiant efforts of “progressives” who know better than it.
I make this argument with respect to Islam. But the context of that argument is that Islam is not a religion. It is a death cult whose holy books instruct its adherents to kill, maim, and destroy its host country if that country does not submit. That is not the case for any other religion. I don’t agree with Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucism, etc ... But their ‘books’, or creeds don’t instruct their believers to destroy. I suspect the Founding Fathers didn’t make this distinction, because having been at war with the Islamic world for over a thousand years, they probably never dreamed of a day when this scourge would be welcomed with open arms.
Perhaps the Founders were also wrong about protecting Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, as well...
...and to think that she gets paid for such twaddle...who did she sleep with to get that job, anyway?
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.
