The Conservative Papers » Barack Obama

Many Faiths Unite in Opposition to Obama Attack on Religious Liberty

kalel — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:29:13 +0000

The Obama Administration’s mandate under the Obamacare statute that many religious employers provide health care coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and human sterilization tramples upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced the Administration policy. Many faiths have united in opposition to the Obama Administration attack on religious liberty.

On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.” Also on that day, the National Association of Evangelicals commented that “The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.”

On January 26, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America stated, “In declining to expand the religious exemption within the healthcare reform law, the Obama Administration has disappointingly failed to respect the needs of religious organizations such as hospitals, social welfare organizations and more.” On the same day, Agudath Israel of America stated:

The Obama Administration had an opportunity to declare that there is a fundamental American value at stake here — religious freedom — and provide strong and unequivocal protections to religious employers. Instead, it took a step backwards by imposing religiously-objectionable mandates on countless religious entities, and by devising a cramped limitation on what “religious groups” are and what their public mission in society should be.

On February 3, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod said, “This action by HHS will have the effect of forcing many religious organizations to choose between following the letter of the law and operating within the framework of their religious tenets.” The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America noted that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and that “This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for ‘contraceptive services’ including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions.”

The Obamacare statute has concentrated in the hands of the federal government broad power over the one-sixth of the American economy that is health care. Obamacare purports to invest in the federal government the power to force religious institutions, such as religious hospitals, charities, and schools, to provide health care insurance for contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and human sterilization, contrary to the faiths of those religious institutions.

As Ronald Reagan said, “Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.” The concentration of nearly all power over health care in the hands of the federal government has proved to be a drastic and dangerous experiment. Congress should repeal the Obamacare statute, allow the country to have market-based, patient-centered health care, and restore our religious liberty.

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Santorum Only GOP Candidate Beating Obama, Rasmussen Daily Poll Finds

kalel — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:39:52 +0000

Republican presidential candidate former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks at the First National Bank Exhibition Hall in Loveland, Colo., Saturday, Feb. 4, 2012. (AP Photo/Chris Schneider)

(CNSNews.com) – Just ahead of three more Republican nominating contests, a new poll — a snapshot in time — shows former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum leading President Barack Obama in a one-on-one matchup.

The Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for one day only — Feb. 5. — marks the first time Santorum has held a lead over Obama in potential matchups.

It’s a small lead for Santorum — 1 percentage point, giving him a 45-44 percent edge over Obama.

“This is the first time Santorum has ever led the president in any poll,” the Rasmussen poll said. “Several other GOP challengers have led the president a single time in the polls, including Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Each man briefly held the lead while they were surging in the polls, only to fall quickly. It remains to be seen what will happen to Santorum’s support.”

The same daily tracking poll finds Obama actually beating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Neither Obama nor the other GOP candidates gets a majority in any of the hypothetical matchups.

On Tuesday, Colorado, and Minnesota hold caucuses and Missouri has a primary.

Santorum holds a slight lead over Romney in Minnesota, 29-27 percent, according to a Public Policy Polling survey of Colorado and Minnesota released on Feb. 5. The same poll shows that Romney leads comfortably in Colorado, 40-26 percent, over Santorum.

Meanwhile, there was media speculation over the weekend that Santorum would do well in Missouri because Gingrich is not on the ballot in that state.

With regards to the Rasmussen poll that found Santorum the only candidate beating Obama, other GOP candidates had respectable showings.

Obama wins 47 percent of the vote against Romney’s 43 percent, according to the Rasmussen daily poll for Feb. 5. Obama and Romney have been virtually tied in most polls for months. Obama leads Paul, 45-42 percent. Gingrich does worse among GOP candidates, losing to Obama 49-41 percent.

Romney has won nominating contests in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada by large margins. Santorum narrowly won the Iowa caucus in early January. Gingrich convincingly won the South Carolina primary. Paul’s best performance thus far was a second place finish in New Hampshire.

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Whitehouse Cover-up: Hiding Documents from Congress in Probe

alpineski — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:51:05 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Justice Department and Republicans on a House committee looking into a flawed gun-smuggling probe within the Obama Administration called Operation Fast and Furious appear headed for an impasse over congressional demands for internal Justice documents.

The dispute is expected to be a prime topic at a hearing Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder testifies before a panel whose chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., alleges the Justice Department is engaging in a cover-up.

Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has threatened to seek a contempt of Congress ruling against Holder for failing to turn over congressionally subpoenaed documents created after problems with Fast and Furious came to light.

The attorney general “will be asked to explain his decision to withhold from the people this factual evidence from investigators,” Issa said before the hearing.

On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the department will provide material created after Feb. 4, 2011, the day the Obama Administration gave incorrect and misleading information to Congress about Fast and Furious.

Cole said the department had made an exception to longstanding policy in order to provide material on how the erroneous Feb. 4 letter was created, but other documents about the congressional inquiries on Fast and Furious would not be turned over.

A committee spokesman, Frederick Hill, said the administration is under investigation for Fast and Furious but also for its response to trying to silence whistle-blowers and investigators who expressed concern about the operation.

“If the Justice Department cannot provide assurances that it will meet its legal obligations” and provide the documents, “the committee has no other option than moving to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt,” Hill said.

In his testimony prepared for Thursday’s hearing, the attorney general said prior administrations have recognized that robust internal communications would be chilled, and the executive branch’s ability to respond to oversight requests impeded, if internal communications concerning responses to congressional oversight were disclosed to Congress.

In a Feb. 4, 2011, letter to Congress, the department said federal agents made every effort to intercept illegally purchased weapons. Instead, agents in the Phoenix-based Fast and Furious investigation employed a risky strategy called “gun-walking” in an effort to track the weapons after purchase. The purpose was to make cases against gun-smuggling ring leaders who had long escaped prosecution.

“Allowing guns to ‘walk’ — whether in this administration or in the prior one — is wholly unacceptable,” Holder stated. “This tactic of not interdicting weapons, despite having the ability and legal authority to do so, appears to have been adopted in a misguided effort to stem the alarming number of illegal firearms that are trafficked each year from the United States to Mexico.”

Fast and Furious was one of at least four gun-smuggling probes that involved gun-walking, all undertaken by the Phoenix division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Three of the gun-walking investigations began under President George W. Bush, one under President Barack Obama. The first started in 2006.

In Fast and Furious, the federal agency lost track of almost 1,400 of the more than 2,000 weapons whose purchase attracted the suspicion of the Fast and Furious investigators. Some 700 guns connected to suspects in the operation have been recovered in Mexico and the U.S., some of them at crime scenes, including the scene near Nogales, Ariz., where border agent Brian Terry was murdered in December 2010. A month after Terry’s death, Congress began hearing of problems with the probe.

Issa’s allegation of a cover-up was fueled by documents turned over Friday by the Justice Department that contained new information about the events of early February 2011.

Two days before Justice told Congress that federal agents made every effort to intercept illegally purchased weapons, the department’s criminal division chief, Lanny Breuer, suggested letting some “straw,” or illicit, weapons buyers in the U.S. transport their guns across the Mexican border so Mexican law enforcement could arrest them there.

According to emails turned over to the committee, Breuer made the suggestion to Mexican officials because it “may send a strong message to arms traffickers” because Mexican laws contain far stiffer penalties against straw gun buyers than U.S. laws do.

Cole said Breuer’s suggestion, which was not implemented, would have been less risky than the earlier investigations because he intended for Mexican agents to arrest the smugglers at the border rather than let the guns loose in Mexico.

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss

alpineski — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:46:10 +0000

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Obama Administration Knifes Britain in the Back over Falklands

kalel — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:09:34 +0000

Falklands

In yet another display of disdain for the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the Obama administration has weighed in on the mounting tensions between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Just two days after Prime Minister David Cameron issued a robust statement in the House of Commons vowing to defend the sovereignty of the Falklands, the US State Department has undercut Britain yet again with a deeply unhelpful statement that plays into Argentina’s hands.

In response to a question on the Falklands at Thursday’s State Department press briefing, a US government spokesman supported direct negotiations between Buenos Aires and London over the sovereignty of the Falklands, something that Argentina has been pressing for aggressively, and which Britain sees as completely unacceptable.

As far is London is concerned, the sovereignty of the Falklands was decisively settled in the 1982 war when British forces retook the Islands after Argentina’s brutal military junta invaded them. The Falklands’ 3,000 inhabitants are 90 per cent British (according to the 2006 census), and 0.1 percent Argentine, and have no desire to live under the boot of Buenos Aires. There is nothing whatsoever to be negotiated over regarding the future of the Falklands, a position the British government has reiterated on numerous occasions.

Here is the official State Department press release on the Falklands issue published today – note the insulting use of the Argentine term for the Islands, “Malvinas”, a de facto declaration by the Obama presidency that it recognises Argentina has a legitimate claim over the Islands:

U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands

Taken Question

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the January 19, 2012 Daily Press Briefing

January 20, 2012

QUESTION: Does the U.S. take a position on the recent posturing between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands?

ANSWER: This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels.

We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.

This latest statement follows an Organisation of American States declaration in June last year, where the Obama administration backed Argentina’s calls for negotiations over the Falklands, as well as a press conference given by Hillary Clinton and Cristina Kirchner in Buenos Aires in March 2010 where the Secretary of State again sided with Argentina.

This latest intervention by the current US administration is both hugely counterproductive as well as grossly insensitive. It will encourage and embolden Kirchner’s regime in its aggressive international campaign over the Falklands, with its ludicrous claim that the Islanders are “hostages” held by Britain against their will. Hillary Clinton and her officials would do well to remember that Britain lost more than 250 brave servicemen and women in restoring British sovereignty to the Islands, and their sacrifice will never be forgotten by the British people.

The repeated US call for a negotiated settlement, which dates back over previous administrations, is well past its sell-by date. This question was emphatically settled in 1982, and should not be and will not be reopened, and Washington should stop suggesting that it will be. It has nothing to gain by doing so, except winning the enmity of America’s closest friend and ally.

And as Margaret Thatcher told the House of Commons after the Argentine invasion in April 1982, the Falklands will always remain British:

The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our Endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.

Cross-posted from The Telegraph

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Obama Administration Picks Fight with Conscience; Congress Can Fight Back

kalel — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:15:39 +0000

Conscience

A remarkable page in the history of American conscientious objection is being written by citizens throughout the United States who are standing up and saying, “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

These are not unemployed, bedraggled 20-somethings looking for a free pass on student loans and camping trips in downtown parks, nor are they unknowns with little influence.

These citizens are Roman Catholic bishops throughout the United States. And in statement after statement issued in diocese after diocese, many bishops are publicly declaring that they “cannot” and “will not” comply with “this unjust law.”

The unjust law in question is a mandate issued last August by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires non-exempt private health insurance plans to provide coverage for all FDA-approved contraception methods, sterilization, and counseling and education.

On the ground that certain FDA-approved contraceptives can sometimes cause chemical abortions, many sources are also arguing that the mandate requires private health insurance plans to provide coverage for abortion.

As James Capretta observes at National Review, not only does this new regulation require religious objectors who work for secular employers to pay for such products in their premiums, but “HHS also wants religious employers to cover such products in their health plans.”

This is a religious freedom problem for many employers, including two religious colleges that have recently challenged the mandate in court.

To make matters worse, HHS recently announced it will not broaden the rule’s exemption for religious employers. As Heritage has previously explained, religious employers qualify for the exemption only if they have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose and primarily employ and serve people who share the employer’s religious tenets.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says this is “the stingiest definition of a ‘religious’ organization ever to appear in federal law.” The definition clearly does not include a wide range of objecting institutions, including religious charities, hospitals, colleges, nursing homes, and universities. In addition, the exemption provides no protection to individuals who conscientiously object.

The government itself has stated that, “Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives,” and “many private employers already cover these services.” Another source claims that “Nine in ten employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives.”

The Obama Administration has nevertheless decided to implement a scorched-earth, last-mile policy of mandating that nearly every health insurance plan provide these morally controversial services. In so doing, the Administration has backed what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling an “unprecedented” attack on religious liberty.

Congress can take steps to protect religious freedom in health care.

For example, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (H.R. 1179, Representative Jeff Fortenberry, R–NE, and S. 1467, Senator Roy Blunt, R–MO) is designed “to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.”

In addition, Senator Marco Rubio (R–FL) has announced plans to introduce the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012, which specifically addresses the religious freedom problems caused by the HHS regulation.

Freedom requires vigilance and action. Religious freedom is no different.

When government officials violate freedom instead of protecting it, American citizens have a duty to take a stand and do what’s right.

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Obama’s Words Don’t Match with Action on Oil and Gas

kalel — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:12:57 +0000

Oil and Gas

At this State of the Union address, President Obama proudly stated that “American oil production is the highest it’s been in eight years” and declared that his Administration would “open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.” While President Obama spoke favorably of the role that oil and gas development play in America, the President’s and his Administration’s actions don’t match with his words.

There are several areas where the President and his Administration are unreasonably hindering access to more oil and gas for Americans and threatening the industry with punitive measures:

Keystone permit rejection. The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver oil from our Canadian ally, relieve some of the pain of high prices at the gas pump, and create jobs in America. Nevertheless, and despite a State Department environmental review concluding that the project poses no significant environmental risk, the President chose to reject TransCanada’s permit application to build the pipeline.
Targeted tax hikes. The President continues to threaten the oil industry with targeted tax hikes. Under the rhetoric of eliminating subsidies for the industry, the President’s proposal would eliminate certain tax treatments for oil that are available to many industries, effectively singling out the oil industry for a tax hike.
Slowdown of production on federal lands. While American oil production has been increasing, the vast majority of that production is taking place on private lands. Production on federal lands is actually 40 percent lower than it was 10 years ago. The House Natural Resources Committee also reports that under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.
Fracking regulation. Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) is a proven oil and gas extraction process that should not be subject to overly burdensome regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering federal regulation of the fracking process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The problem is that the agency is following a procedure that even the Department of Energy criticized for its “selective focus” on “negative outcomes.”

Words alone will not make energy more abundant and affordable, nor will they create the energy-related jobs that would make the American economy stronger. If the President is truly concerned about increasing America’s energy access, he certainly has a funny way of showing it.

For policies in that direction, Heritage policy analyst Nick Loris explains in two papers how to make gas and electricity prices more affordable and how to create jobs and raise government revenue through energy exploration.

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Liberal Billionaire Financier George Soros Admits: Obama, Romney ‘Not Much Difference’ (VIDEO)

kalel — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:20:47 +0000

Billionaire financier George Soros thinks that, if Mitt Romney wins the presidency, there will be “little difference” between him and Barack Obama in the White House.

Soros offered the reassuring news to liberals across Europe during an interview this week in Davos, Switzerland.

As policymakers from Hong Kong to Canada pressed Greece and its creditors to strike a deal to cut the nation’s debt, Soros pressed in on GOP presidential candidate Romney:

“Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in,” Soros told Reuters in a videotaped interview.

“If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.”

Soros added, “Romney would have to take Gingrich or Santorum as a vice president and you probably have some pretty extreme candidates for the Supreme Court.”

“So it won’t be that great a difference,” he concluded, if Romney becomes president.

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh described Soros’ move this way: “He’s endorsing Romney. ‘Romney, that’s cool, no difference, I could go either way that way.’”

Soros also told Reuters that many hedge fund managers in the United States are backing Romney because Obama wants to raise their taxes.

Soros predicted that “there won’t be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground. It will be more civilized than the previous elections have been.”

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

From Newsmax

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Biden Does Fake Indian Accent During Outsourcing Speech?

kalel — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:34:08 +0000

Vice President Joe Biden. Photo credit: Center for American Progress Action Fund

BIDEN: Even call centers, even call centers rushed over seas, hundreds of thousands. How many times you get the call, ‘I like to talk to you about your credit card’? Or that ad on TV, what is it? ‘Nancy, this is Nancy, can I talk to a supervisor?’ Right? Ok? Well, it’s a little overdone but the truth of the matter is these jobs now are paying about $19.50 an hour if memory serves me.

While at a jobs event in Rochester, New Hampshire: VP Joe Biden uses an Indian accent to imitate call service employees. (1/26/2012)

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

FLASHBACK VIDEO: Then-Sen. Joe Biden commits a gaffe when talking to an Indian-American supporter: “You CANNOT go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent … I’m not joking.”

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Green Energy Irony: Obama’s 22-Vehicle Fossil Fuel Motorcade (VIDEO)

kalel — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:06:52 +0000

Yesterday, President Barack Obama rolled through Las Vegas to push for federal investment in clean energy vehicles, making his pitch at a UPS plant, escorted by a motorcade of 22 fossil fuel-burning vehicles. We haven’t seen anything this ironic since Al Gore hopped on a private jet to promote his global warming flick “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Kudos to our friends at the Nevada Policy Research Institute who captured the moment on video.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.