Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wa: A woman’s right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act trumps anyone else’s religious freedom.

BSMeter2

The Obama administration is being handed a lesson in Christianity 101 as religious leaders rise up to condemn an Obamacare requirement that forces religious organizations to pay for abortifacients or face crippling financial penalties.

“Christian doctrine states it is a sin for a Christian to enable or aid another in doing what the Christian believes to be sin,” states a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by a coalition of dozens of prominent Protestant theologians, African-American pastors and participants in the Manhattan Declaration.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed over the requirement in the Affordable Health Care Act that employers pay for abortifacents. Two cases, involving Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, are pending for review before the Supreme Court.

Even members of Congress have weighed in against the provision, which effectively forces Christians to violate their faith by participating in the killing of unborn children.

Read more

Editor’s note: Sen. Murray’s totally wrong-headed point of view is very popular in the Seattle area, where liberal “Catholicism” has been the norm, for many years.

To be fair, we must apply gun control principles to elected politicians and government appointees, without exception.

ladyjust

by Doug Lawrence

Let’s get real. The problem is not guns. The problem is widespread corruption and immorality, which pervades our present day society and especially, our government.

With that in mind, it’s time to require instant background checks on every politician, elected or appointed, without exception, covering every local, state and federal jurisdiction … especially the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President/Vice President.

Elected or not, if the politician fails to pass an instant background check, he/she is out of there! All accrued pensions and benefits would be instantly forfeit, as well.

Constitutional issues could certainly be quickly resolved by the same people who are presently attempting to subvert and otherwise “gut” our country’s founding documents. But of course, that would be grounds for instant dismissal, under the PIBC (Politician Instant Background Check) provisions.

Those guys better watch out!

An armed population is an essential guarantee against centralized tyranny.

Addressing Feinstein directly, Mr. Boston, who served tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, says he’ll refuse to register his weapons and writes, “You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain.”

“I am not your subject,” he continues. “I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant.”

Read more

Liberal’s worst nightmare: Even a child can see that the latest gun ban arguments are 1000 times more applicable to banning abortion.

billlofrights

Bill of Rights

by Doug Lawrence

The right to bear arms is specifically included in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, while the “right” to abortion remains only a cruel fabrication of those who have elevated personal, irresponsible and unlimited sexual license above everything else.

The billions … probably trillions … of Homeland Security dollars that were “allocated” to states and municipalities all across the country, based on politics and alleged fairness, rather than likely exposure to terrorism, could have been used to properly secure every school in the country, but instead, they were squandered on spiffy new surveillance systems, cars, boats, trailers and trucks, as well as many other totally unnecessary law enforcement assets and projects.

Now the “libs” want to to demagogue the school violence issue in order to achieve a few minimal and totally ineffective gains for their gun control agenda.

But, you say …
if the life of only one child is saved …
it will be worth it!

How about instead, we ban abortion … and save the lives of 3000 innocent children every day!

Read the Hobby Lobby letter explaining why the Obamacare HHS Mandate will not stand.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that.

Read more

Fortnight for Freedom Issue #14: Religious Liberty FAQs

What do we mean by religious liberty?

Religious liberty is the first liberty granted to us by God and protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution. It includes more than our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It also encompasses our ability to contribute freely to the common good of all Americans.

What is the First Amendment?

The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

What does “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” mean?

This phrase, known as the “Establishment Clause,” started out as a prohibition on Congress’ either establishing a national religion or interfering with the established religions of the states. It has since been interpreted to forbid state establishments of religion, to forbid governmental preference (at any level) of one religion over another, and to forbid direct government funding of religion.

What does “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” mean?

This phrase, known as the “Free Exercise Clause,” generally protects citizens and institutions from government interference with the exercise of their religious beliefs. It sometimes mandates the accommodation of religious practices when such practices conflict with federal, state, or local laws.

What did our early American leaders say about religious freedom?

Read more (with PDF’s)

Keyes: Impeach Obama.

During his public career, he has repeatedly expressed the view that the Constitution is outdated; that the ideas and concepts from which it is derived interfere with achieving the goals of his socialist ideology. When someone with these convictions abuses the power of the office he occupies in a way that plainly contravenes the Constitution’s provisions, it is both wise and prudentially necessary to assume that his motives are suspect; that he acts with hostile intention derived from his ideology to circumvent or destroy the Constitution, not to preserve or defend it. This is especially true when, as in the immigration matter we are discussing, there is no evidence of any urgent or immediate threat requiring suspension of the Constitution’s prescribed legislative prerogatives and procedures.

With this in mind, Obama’s suspension of law enforcement with respect to certain provisions of U.S. law re immigration ought immediately to produce a vote in favor of impeachment in the House of Representatives. Though his action amounts to granting a reprieve to individuals otherwise subject to deportation under the law, he applies that reprieve, as it were, out of the clear blue sky, in the entire absence of exigent circumstances that might justify urgent action in defense of the Constitution. This does not appear to be a necessary exercise of extraordinary Executive discretion justified by exculpatory circumstances. To all appearances, it is clearly a usurpatory exercise of legislative power, by which he purports to repeal an existing provision of law and substitutes for it another one, of his own making.

Read more