links to an article on the Daily beast (to which I won't link because of their openly anti Christian editor) saying that the contraception rule was about money:
“Completely ignored is the more fundamental problem: this mandate is not only about the bedroom, it’s about the boardroom. You’ve heard of crony capitalism? Well this is America’s first example of crony contraceptives. Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of ‘the pill,’ which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all ‘FDA approved contraceptive methods.’ It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment. . . . It’s important to point out that among President Obama’s biggest financial backers are precisely the Big Pharma companies who benefit from the mandate.”
Lots of stuff about a Rush Limbaugh boycott that is reaching people who have little or nothing to do with him.
Seems to me that those companies pressured by emails to boycott him will lose a lot more money from his listeners, but never mind. There is even a site suggesting that she sue him for libel.
Well, let me tell you how libel works. Here in the Philippines, you aren't allowed to "libel" politicians, so you can't post rumors or stories that say what everyone knows (e.g. who stole what). That meant that we couldn't go pickett the mayor who ordered the hit on his rivals, that killed our nephew who was a bystander, even though everyone in town knew the hit wasn't a "robbery" (which is what the embassy implied when they didn't get involved in pressuring the gov't for justice) and a lot of us knew that the indictment was delayed for years because of a payment to the ombudsman stolen from the city funding.
How strict is that law? Well, Bishop Cruz once criticized a big party held for the "first gentleman" of our previous lovely president Gloria. The waitresses were employees of businesses who "volunteered" their time. All were beautiful young women. When the Bishop pointed out that these companies volunteered only beautiful young women who dressed in skimpy clothing to work for free, he was implying corruption, a bribe by these companies to the government to get business or to pay back for favors.
So the waitresses sued the Bishop for libel: His essay implied we were immoral women and we are not. How dare he libel our good name.
So they took the bishop to court in Manila and after a lot of publicity and time off to attend court, he ended up paying a nominal fine.
That is the problem with such a case: Not the verdict, but that the threat of having to take off and go to court is worse than the the insult itself.
And here, it is an attempt to shut up the opposition, just like the Arroyo administration tried to silence the Bishop, who published numerous essays on his blog against the administration's corruption, but couldn't name names or details because of the libel law.
another article on the Obama persecution of their opponants: The Tea Party is being asked illegal questions by the IRS.
some examples from NatReview site:
These information demands follow tea-party requests for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status and include questions like the following:
Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications.
Please describe the associate group members and their role with your organization in further detail. (a) How does your organization solicit members? (b) What are the questions asked of potential members? (c) What are the selection criteria for approval? (d) Do you limit membership to other organizations exempt under 501(c)(4) of the Code? (e) Provide the name, employer identification number, and address of the organizations.
And Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship
Hmm....I don't know much about the law (the NR suggests that the fishing expedition for more information about those they associate with is illegal) but it seems to me that a lot of political information could be gathered this way.
And what is to stop the IRS from sending a similar questionaire to religious groups or the Catholic church? and then maybe using the information to force the church to shut up or lose their tax exemption?
which brings us to another article: FT requotes the recently deceased James Q Wilson
who dared to point out that the emperor had no clothing when it comes to destroying traditional marriage.
He dares to say what is now called homophobic: That too many of these "marriage" are about having a tax exemption but staying free to be promiscuous.
But he brings up the deeper argument, that thousands of years of traditions have recognized marriage, and that it is not a mere government granted right. That "it's about equal rights" ignores the nuances of what marriage actually is about.
And so the "contraception" part is only the first part of the debate: the aim is a full fledged war against the Catholic church.
In Ireland, we see how manipulating abuse problems was magnified to destroy the church, and the Pope has cautioned the bishops here that they are next in line because too many priests here have girlfriends, and this will be used to destroy the church to pass the "reproductive health" bill (which by the way also has a legal way to keep you quiet: if you criticize contraception, you could be fined 200 dollars. This is a month's salary for a nurse here).
which brings us to Father Rutler. Again, link from FT
Pope Benedict XVI said last January: “…it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.”...
The man who saw no enemies might plead with good reason that the media have, to put it mildly, inadequately publicized these persecutions. That kind of plea, however, can no longer be sustained when elements of our own government have declared war on the Church, and persecution both subtle and blatant has gone domestic. Catholics have not been prepared to deal with this, and some have even been compliant. If we rely only on institutional bureaucracy to be our line of defense, we may find it to be a Maginot Line. The Allies were unprepared when Churchill spoke in 1938 because people wanted butter not guns, but found soon enough that butter was being rationed, and guns were pointing at them.
and the tipping point will be gay marriage, and once the churches are destroyed, there will be no voices to stop tax payers paying for abortion, or euthanasia...