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

Skip to comments.

Religious controversy burns Obama again (the rookie Hussein is in WAY over his pay grade)
The Hill ^ | 2/11/12 | Niall Stanage, Amie Parnes

Posted on 02/11/2012 6:18:30 PM PST by Libloather

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last
The Gospel according to Obama
WASHINGTON -- At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified "as a Christian," "coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"
1 posted on 02/11/2012 6:18:37 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Announcing his proposed compromise on Friday, Obama had to emphasize again that he bore no animus toward religious people or institutions. He referred to the principle of religious liberty and added “as a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.”

If that's so, then Zero clearly doesn't understand it, nor the concept of rights in general nor the concept of separation of church and state.

2 posted on 02/11/2012 6:22:10 PM PST by Post Toasties (Leftists give insanity a bad name. 0bama: Four years of failure and fingerpointing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

People who think Obama did this naively or without realizing there’s be blowback are nuts. He knew exactly what he was doing. Just like everything else he’s done. It’s not “in over his head” stupidity, it’s part of his radical vision of a different country.

Anyone will tell you that you never go into a negotiation asking for the least you’ll accept - you always ask for the MOST. Then you back down if necessary and still end up getting most of what you wanted in the first place.

Look at Obamas #1 position - absolute mandate.
Then look at #2 - “the accomodation”, which merely shifts the responsibility for payment without altering the mandate.

Anyone care to guess what #3 will be? Rest assured it will not be complete recapitulation. That’s not in the playbook.

Already falling back to position #2 has gained a great deal of support from Catholics and others. He’ll probably fight like hell to go no further, and if he wins, he’s really won everything he wanted.

It is evil and wrong, but it is not a rookie mistake.


3 posted on 02/11/2012 6:27:29 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

What a pathetic puff piece apologizing for the faux christian. The media are incorrigible!!!


4 posted on 02/11/2012 6:28:39 PM PST by SierraWasp (I'm done being disappointed by "He/She is the only one who can win" and being embarrassed later!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Look at Obamas #1 position - absolute mandate.
Then look at #2 - “the accomodation”, which merely shifts the responsibility for payment without altering the mandate.

Anyone care to guess what #3 will be? Rest assured it will not be complete recapitulation. That’s not in the playbook.

Already falling back to position #2 has gained a great deal of support from Catholics and others. He’ll probably fight like hell to go no further, and if he wins, he’s really won everything he wanted.

It is evil and wrong, but it is not a rookie mistake.

________________________________________________

You absolutely nailed it. Leftist ploy and never giving ground. The Catholics are nuts to fall for it.

I would leave the system and self insure. Let the government monies go.


5 posted on 02/11/2012 6:29:40 PM PST by Chickensoup (In the 20th century 200 million people were killed by their own governments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The man may be religious or a Christian, but his main God is socialism, communism. He doesn’t try to avoid it and end up in the middle of it according to the article, his leanings want to conquer religion and religious people. A supposed learned scholar of the Constitution would steer very clear of the controversies he has had with faith. He does not cherish religious liberty or he would be willing to die for it. He would uphold his oath to defend the Constitution and the religious liberty of the citizen of the USA. His other God is abortion as his record indicates. His words are wholly vacuous and empty.


6 posted on 02/11/2012 6:30:46 PM PST by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

A veritable choir of spinners, all trying to make bad look like good.

Obama “steps in it” because he has to. The dog returns to his vomit.

Religion is baked into our system at a fundamental level. Our country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, including the freedom to good things within the framework of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Obama can’t make “fundamental changes” in America without getting rid of the religious component of our national heritage. He knows it and the “intellectuals” who are making his policies in the background know it too.

The thing I don’t understand is how any of this could possibly fly in the courts. When did the establishment clause become a dead letter? Obama seems to think everyone is going to just nod and sign away their rights under the first amendment.

Got news for you, Obama. That may fly among your crowd of phoney-baloney academic pseudo-intellectuals, but to make it fly in the real world you’re going to have to get rid of the second amendment first.

And you don’t have time to do that.


7 posted on 02/11/2012 6:43:58 PM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Yep, some lib female university prof was on Fox just eating up Obama’s “accomodation” with a spoon, you just just tell she was thrilled to have her idol back, having so skillfully negotiated this issue in such a clever fashion. It was a real barfer!

Your mention of self-insurance brings up a good point: what about Catholic or other religious institutions that are self-insured? Now that the insurance companies are mandated by Obamacare to cover contraception, for them this means there is absolutely NO accomodation, since they set their own money aside to pay for their healthcare benefits anyway. All most self-insured organizations do is hire some third party to handle claims and paperwork, but there truly is no “insurance” in the sense of shared risk, it’s all their own money.

I guess that’s just one of those things you don’t know is in the bill until after you sign it...


8 posted on 02/11/2012 6:44:32 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Obama is just the pliable sock puppet (a figurehead, if you will); Valerie Jarrett is essentially the president.
9 posted on 02/11/2012 6:56:53 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Yes, Sir you have nailed it.

He thinks he understands “religion”; he can make some allusions thereto and we all should feel good.

He is no Christian, and his stumbling about on the wrong side of clear issues is all the evidence we need...

Has he finally awakened the sleeping giant? We can build on the recent faux pas, I hope.

It shouldn’t have taken this latest, as his apostasy was clear already.


10 posted on 02/11/2012 6:59:25 PM PST by One Name (Go to the enemy's home court and smoke his ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“What he probably needs is an office of faith awareness “...

Huh?? A new czar? A new committee?

Just wow....


11 posted on 02/11/2012 7:03:25 PM PST by CT Hillbilly (Thoughts=Words=Actions=Destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Libloather

I think the Bishops are pushing their luck, now. At first they said Catholic institutions shouldn’t be forced by the govt. to pay for contraceptions and abortions. Violation of church and state. But now they are moving the goalposts and saying ANYONE opposed to abortions and contraceptives on moral grounds should not be made to pay for them. So where does it stop? How about people who object to capital punishment on moral grounds. Should the govt. force them to pay for executions with their tax money? How about people who object to war on moral grounds. Should the govt. still be able to force them to finance war with their tax money? Theres probably a million other examples. The Bishops should just have stuck with religious institutions. By moving the goalposts they will lose a lot of the sympathy and support they have gained.


13 posted on 02/11/2012 7:20:24 PM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
(the rookie Hussein is in WAY over his pay grade)

I suggest nobama had little to do with this decision. It was probably made by his aides and czars as nobama is not intelligent enough to handle something like this.

I've read articles about his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. Remember, he didn't write that speech. He's incapable. It was written by someone else, loaded on the teleprompter and spewed by nobama.

This presidency must constantly be dumbed down to accommodate nobama.

14 posted on 02/11/2012 7:37:10 PM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: One Name

Obama a Christian ...riiiight!!!!

Where is his baptismal record? Right in the same box as his US birth certifdicate and his outstanding grade reports from Harvard and Columbia.

Bullshite


15 posted on 02/11/2012 7:38:03 PM PST by wetgundog (" Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no Vice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Goal for #3 ~ just thinking. If they can force you to accept”free” birth control - how long until they can force you to take it? After all, it is economically justified.


16 posted on 02/11/2012 7:47:46 PM PST by kayti (Maranatha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Goal for #3 ~ just thinking. If they can force you to accept”free” birth control - how long until they can force you to take it? After all, it is economically justified.


17 posted on 02/11/2012 7:48:04 PM PST by kayti (Maranatha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wetgundog

He thinks he can talk a good religious game- like the way he has faked his way through everything else in life.

He doesn’t understand that there are certain measures of a man.


18 posted on 02/11/2012 7:51:59 PM PST by One Name (Go to the enemy's home court and smoke his ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
**Catholic voters historically voted Democratic in heavy numbers**

Not any more.

How about all the Jews, evangelicals, etc. who voted for Obama?

19 posted on 02/11/2012 7:56:21 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Here is where the goalpost is at:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

20 posted on 02/11/2012 8:00:43 PM PST by oldbrowser (They are Marxists, don't call them democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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