Posts Tagged 'constitution'

The Right to Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Imagine if Mitt Romney gets elected, makes polygamy legal and mandates mission trips for young people.  I think we would be pretty shocked at the bold establishment of religion coming from the white house.  Yet we did not have that same gut reaction when Obama established his religion from the white house and got it passed without the required majority support through budget reconciliation. 

This is why the conservative movement has been so unprepared to handle charges that they are oppressing women or denying people rights when we object to being forced to pay for abortion.  Being told that by me not paying for someone else’s birth control, I am denying them the right to birth control is like telling a jungle native that they must be born again and put Jesus in their heart.  It just doesn’t translate.  The argument that healthcare is a right and society must therefore provide it is so ridiculous that conservatives reject it automatically.  But for Obama and social justice, liberation Christians it is gospel truth.

I checked, healthcare isn’t in the constitution.  But neither are puppies, and there are certain things you just have to be cautious about when arguing against.

What is in the constitution is religion and guns.  In fact, the private ownership and practice of both are enumerated rights.  What if I am too poor to afford a gun?  What if my community is too poor to support a church?  How is it that social justice does not then require the government or society to purchase my gun for me?  And as simply as that, for the non-liberation theologian, the idea of society owing me healthcare is defeated.

So why doesn’t this concept fall so easily?  If you listen to the liberal argument, Georgetown is denying Sandra Fluke the right to birth control by not buying it for her.  The right has a “war on women” because we want to protect the religious liberty and conscience of churches and religious organizations.  Conservatives have already ceded the rights of the religious employer in a secular field.  And how easily we let go.  I often wonder if Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska who sold his conscientious objection to abortion funding for an earmark, ever wishes he could buy back his soul.

To understand the religious connotations of social justice in healthcare and why this religion shamelessly trumps the constitution, you have to understand liberation theology and James Cone.  Cone was required reading at Obama’s church.  Cone divided his teaching into dogmatic and methodological teachings.  The dogmatic teaching was the paradox that there is no universal truth.  Not even revelation in the Scriptures is absolute truth.  In fact, God is not in control and the very evidence of that is the existence of racism.

Cone’s methodological approach was contextual-dialectic.  What this means is that scripture has value in the way it relates to the reader’s context.  For Cone, this meant that the value of scripture was how it confirmed his own perception of racism against blacks.  From his perspective, there was no value in the original, contextual meaning of the scriptures.

Apply this to Obama’s thinking, and it makes sense that he would think Jesus wanted him to raise taxes, or that healthcare is a social justice right that trumps the constitution.  It also explains a lot about the ambiguity of Obama’s faith, his comfort level with the Muslim faith, and why he is so eager to impose his liberation theology on the country.  Obama is what the media keeps trying to convince us Santorum is.  Obama is a religious fanatic who is seeking to impose his beliefs on the country.  He is not alone, social justice and liberation theology is the spine of the liberal movement in the United States.  Documents like the constitution have value only to the extent that they endorse the liberal readers personal context.

That is why when a religious employer refuses to buy abortion pills for their employees, they are actually denying that employee the right to have abortion pills and are stealing her rights.  This is truth from the liberal perspective.

If Conservatives are going to successfully defend the constitution, perhaps James Cone should be required reading for us as well.


A Fluke? Or A Movement?

In case you have been living under a rock, Sandra Fluke is the college student attending Georgetown University who testified before Congress that her birth control costs $3,000 a year and the only way she can get birth control is if Congress allows the President to force religious institutions (like Georgetown) to pay for it, which they then did.  Rush Limbaugh got himself into some trouble when he used a two naughty words to describe someone who wants others to pay for her to have sex.  Judging by family friendly ABC’s new show GCB (originally titled Good Christian Bitches), if only Rush had called Fluke an SP, he would have been ok.

The left wants us to see Fluke like this:

She is a very young, very poor college student who perhaps has acne or cysts on her ovaries that only birth control can fix.  However, Republicans are voting to make Georgetown revoke her rights to buy birth control because every sperm is precious.  In the end, perhaps she wrote a letter to her senator and her senator actually read it, but somehow Fluke came in contact with Democrats in Washington DC who found her story so compelling that they tried to have her testify before Congress, but Republicans hate women and wanted only men testifying so they said no.

In actual fact, Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old law student who can afford $50,000 a year for law school, but can’t seem to find her way into Target or Wal Mart where birth control is $9 a month.  She wants to force her Catholic college and all Americans to pay so that she can have as much consequence-free sex as she can fit between classes.  She also is not random.  Fluke has been an activist promoting the idea of forcing others to pay for birth control and morning after abortion pills.  In fact, she was the president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.  It’s amazing to me that no one blinks at the fact that this seemingly random student somehow ended up as the star witness for the Democrats, even though Pelosi’s office can’t seem to confirm or deny if the two had ever talked previously.  In fact, Democrats pulled their official witness in order to put Fluke in front of the cameras with her false sob story.  The last minute switcheroo violated policy which is the real reason she wasn’t allowed to testify by those mean old women-hating Republicans.

By the way, which is more offensive?  Rush using naughty words to describe her?  Or Obama giving Christian hospitals, colleges, orphanages, churches and other religious institutions the choice of either providing contraception AND morning after abortion pills or shutting their doors?  Even more offensive is Obama’s hardline on religious institutions while he simultaneously cuts military health benefits.

This brings us to the scary question.  What was Fluke doing at a Jesuit-run Catholic university in the first place?  Doesn’t she know the Catholic church’s teachings on contraception?  Actually, she does and that is why she went there.  Fluke reviewed the Georgetown student insurance policies and enrolled in order to change them.  As a liberal activist, she infiltrated Georgetown in order to use the hand of government to overturn their first amendment rights and force her personal, secular ideologies on them.

This line of attack should scare any religious institution.  It’s one thing when liberals are attacking religion from the outside, like ABC’s new anti-Christian show.  I wouldn’t infringe on people’s freedom of speech and I can control my own remote (imagine that).  But this idea that liberal activists are going to be infiltrating religious institutions in order to impose their secular beliefs on the rest of us should be far more alarming than any naughty words used by an entertainer. Should Christian schools start screening students to make sure they are not liberal plants?

I went to a Christian college for two years.  They taught creation.  They would never pay for morning after pill abortions and actually had rules against pre-marriage intercourse.  They had rules against drugs, homosexuality, drinking, and even foul language.  But it was ok.  We knew that when we went there.  I made a personal choice to go there and live under those rules for two years.  That is something people can do in a free society.  This freedom is the core target of the Fluke-style infiltration assault on Christianity.

This is pretty serious stuff.  The Left has a lot to answer for.  Was Fluke a plant?  If so, it is Fluke and Pelosi who should be apologizing to the country for this blatant fraud and attempt to steal our first amendment rights.

Selfishness of the Pro-Abortion Movement

Does the government have the right to tell religious institutions to buy birth control and morning after abortion pills for their employees?  Is it enough to have a religious exemption for institutions whose sole goal is to spread their faith?  If you have been asking yourself these questions lately, you are asking yourself the wrong questions.

First, let’s briefly address the exemption for religious organizations who solely exist to share their faith. Those organizations are few and far between.  Very few religious organizations seek to share their faith without also offering humanitarian aid, social work with teenagers, child services, food and training for the poor.  Aid to the poor is one of the largest purposes for the church and for Christians.

The question we should be asking when it comes to the religious exemption, is what about private business owners who object to birth control and morning after pills based on religious principle?  Why don’t they get an exemption?

Here is what this debate really comes down to.  I am a Protestant Christian and we use birth control.  We oppose morning after pills.  Every month we shell out $9 for our birth control pills, and I guess we forgo a date for two to McDonalds to do it.  I would never ask anyone else to pay that $9 for me.  I especially would never ask someone who objected to birth control on religious grounds to pay for it for me.  That is the epitome of selfishness.

I guess there are people out there who can’t afford $9 a month and can’t keep it in their pants.  Don’t ask religious people to give you that birth control or morning after pill.  Don’t ask the government to violate our 1st amendment rights and force us to provide that.

As far as the pro-abortion movement, if you truly believe that “they are just going to do it anyway”, sex among 13 and 14 year olds is a free expression of love, babies are a disease that kill dreams, or whatever, then set up a foundation that collects donations and pays for birth control and morning after pills.   You could form the organization after a charitable model like Toys for Tots and deliver a year’s supply of birth control to needy teenagers every Christmas.  You could call it Kontraception for Kids.  Or how about Planned Parenthood.

Some people mistakenly think this year’s election has anything to do with banning contraception on the federal level.  No, it has to do with whether everyone will be forced to pay for each others contraception.  It has to do with whether the liberals are going to force people to go against their religious objections and pay for something they find morally reprehensible in violation of their 1st amendment rights.  Does the constitution still matter?  That is the question in this debate.  Nobody is threatening to ban birth control.

If you are on Obama’s side and think Christians, Muslims and Jews should be forced to pay for your contraception, stop and think about how selfish that request is.

The branch of government

Towards the beginning of his term, Obama decided to order his justice department to stop prosecuting certain marijuana laws.  Obama has decided to ignore immigration laws to the point where states have taken the federal government’s duty upon themselves.  When they did, he sued them for it.

Obama is currently being held in contempt of court for reissuing a ban on oil drilling, even after the judge ruled his initial ban unconstitutional.  Contempt of court is somewhat serious in many cases.  Of course, Clinton taught us that Presidents don’t have to worry about things like contempt, perjury and obstruction.  Presidents play by different rules than citizens.

Now apparently they play by different rules than our constitutional government as well.

Today, Obama decided that in addition to the Presidency, he is ready to take on the duties of the Supreme Court.  Today Obama ruled, in a 1-0 decision, that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.  As a result, Obama has instructed the department of justice to stop defending the law that elected representatives passed and President Clinton signed.

Now, I’m no Harvard Constitutional scholar, but isn’t judicial review the job of the courts?  Isn’t it the job of the President to uphold the laws of the United States as long as those laws are on the books?

Actually yes.  While Obama pontificates on the constitutionality of DOMA, he is ignoring Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution that requires the President to take care that the law is faithfully executed.

Obama may not realize this, but ignoring his constitutional duty for partisan political reasons sets a precedent that he may not intend.  For example, what happens when the next President decides that Obamacare is unconstitutional and instructs the justice department and IRS to not enforce it?  Oh wait, a judge already did that. But Obama is willing to force this door to swing both ways, and he is ordering the government to implement Obamacare even though it has been struck down as unconstitutional.

This is not the wild west, and Obama is not John Wayne with a sheriff’s badge.  We have a rule of law in this nation and a Constitution.   It is what separates the United States from Libya or Egypt.  If Obama thinks DOMA is unconstitutional, then he should get Congress to repeal it or let the Supreme Court do its job.  If the President can pick and choose what laws to faithfully execute, then where is our representative constitutional government?


Back to being just President

It’s amazing to me that after shrugging of Republican fears of anti-constitutional judicial activism, now Democrats are crying judicial activism after the voiding of Obamacare by a Pensacola judge.  Judge Roger Vinson agreed with 26 states that the Federal government does not have the right to force citizens to buy certain products from private corporations.

He is right.  Where in the constitution does it even suggest that the government can force people to buy things?  And this is for a very good reason.  After all, if the government could mandate that you buy certain products from private industries, then those in power could maintain their power by picking winners and losers through legislation.

For a good example, you don’t need to look any further than the Obama administration’s handling of the bailouts.  They violated the constitution when they took Chrysler and GM from the bond and stock holders and handed them over to the unions.  Imagine what they could do if the judiciary upheld a law stating that they could order citizens to purchase goods from private companies.

What would happen is that we would all eventually be fit into the government mold of a model citizen.  If the government could tell you what foods you could eat, or what car you could drive, don’t you think they would?

Actually, they already do through our tax system.  You get tax breaks if you buy a home, go to school, buy energy efficient improvements or cars, give to charity, or do so many other government approved activities.

For once, a judge is saying no and is upholding the constitution.  President Obama must be mystified that a court would actually act as a check and balance against his power.  For years the judiciary was the vehicle of social changes that the legislature could not pass if they hoped to be re-elected.  Whether it was deciding that women have the constitutional right to privacy when depriving their unborn of the constitutional right to life or almost any decision by the 9th circuit, the courts have not been the last line of defense for constitutionalism that they were designed to be.  This time, the system worked.

Fresh into Obama’s presidency, he chose to stop enforcing federal drug laws in medical marijuana states.  He so poorly enforced immigration laws that states resorted to writing their own immigration laws, which he then sued them for.  Obama chose to drop the voter intimidation case against the black panthers even after the justice department had won the case.  He violated the constitution with a moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf.  When a judge struck it down, he turned around and issued a new moratorium.

With everything going on in Egypt, if anyone should be respecting the will of the people and our democratic rule of law, it should be President Obama.  Our constitutional system of freedom, elections, and a government of checks and balances is what prevents Presidents from becoming tyrants, and citizens from becoming revolutionaries on days other than the first Tuesday in November.

Sofar, the administration is appealing and ignoring the ruling.  But if Vinson’s ruling stands, Obama will need to make a decision.  Will he respect our constitution and the rule of law and start over on healthcare?

Obama has delivered change.  We now have an executive branch that can own private businesses, force consumers to buy, pick and choose what laws to enforce, reward supporters and punish detractors.  Obama has greatly extended the power of his office.

The message from Judge Vinson’s ruling is clear.  We have a democratic government designed with checks and balances and based on the constitution.  It’s time for Obama to go back to being just President.

Abortion Compromise?

“All mutual concession in the nature of compromise must necessarily be unwelcome to men of extreme opinions.” – Democrat Millard Filmore, December 2, 1850

Millard Filmore was celebrating the success of a series of compromises that kept slavery legal, caused the Federal Government to be in charge of capturing runaway slaves, and in return admitted California as a free state and kept slavery out of the territories of Utah and New Mexico. This got me thinking.

In a debate in Florida for the Senate seat, Charlie Crist accused his Republican opponent Marco Rubio of being radically against abortion.  Crist then claimed he himself is pro-life.  He is among a growing number of so-called moderate Republicans and independents who think we must compromise on abortion and not emphasize it in elections.  Some Republicans suggest we compromise by allowing some early abortions in order to stop late term abortions and partial birth abortions.  Here is my question, what compromise on slavery would Crist have been happy with?  Is it an ok compromise to make California a free state if it means leaving people in Georgia enslaved?
Compromises on the life and death issue of abortion puts us on the wrong side of the issue no matter what side we are coming from. Abortion is contrary to the constitution, to basic human rights, and to a civilized culture. Yet the left argues that it is constitutional. As though this is some moral determining factor, the left argues that it is the law of the land, therefore it is right. Again, this echoes the moderates of a century and a half ago.  Consider these words:

“I believe that involuntary servitude (slavery), as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called the ‘compromise measures,’ are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect…I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.” – Democrat Franklin Pierce, from his inauguration, 1852.

The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals.  Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.

Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections?  Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.

May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.

Constitution Takes a Hit in CA

Christians believe that marriage began with Adam and Eve.  Actually, Jews and Muslims follow this same teaching.  Catholics and some Protestant groups have gone as far as making marriage a religious sacrament that endows followers with a measure of saving grace.  It is a sacred religious institution just as much as the Eucharist, baptism in any form, prayer mats, steeples and pulpits.  And until recently, marriage has always legally had the basic definition of between a man and a woman.

Then came the income tax.  Despite 14th amendment guarantees of equal treatment under the law, different people were taxed at different rates based on their income.  This sometimes created tax benefits for married couples, and other times created what is known as the marriage penalty, which will be coming back in full force January 1.  Since one spouse worked and the other often times didn’t, they would be taxed a higher rate than if they filed individually.  Other tax benefits and penalties for married couples included tax treatment of insurance benefits, along with various credits and deductions that have been passed and expired over the years.  The result is that a couple living together without being married under federal law were treated differently than a couple who was legally married.  Marriage became an institution of the state and the state issued marriage licenses.

So where does that leave us with equal protection under the Constitution?  For homosexual couples, this became the backbone for their argument.  Although the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, homosexual couples have argued that any two consenting adults should have the right to marriage, as long as there is only two of them, they are consenting, and they are adults.  That way, homosexual couples can have the rights to the same tax rates, hospital visitation, insurance benefits and any other benefit for which our current social and tax policy has 14th amendment violations built in.

The rub is that in California, they already had civil unions overcoming every 14th amendment violation. The only difference was that only men and women could get certificates that said “Marriage” on them.  The equivalent argument would be a 50 year old Muslim woman demanding that she be able to have a Bar Mitzvah because of the 14th amendment.  What’s the difference?  Marriage certificates are issued by the state.

Why are marriage certificates issued by the state?  For the same reason old European church-states required infant baptism.  It provided proper tax records while maintaining the traditional religious connotation.  Instead of marriage being between a man a woman and God, it became a state registration along with your drivers license and dog license.  Why can’t states just issue civil unions for everyone and let churches marry whoever they will?  Then God is the judge, not Uncle Sam.

Judge Walker, the openly homosexual judge who overturned California’s voter approved ban, labeled marriage nothing more than a tradition of bigotry.  I wonder when he will decide to rule that salvation must be granted to all Americans under the 14th amendment?  After all, isn’t it bigoted to believe that someone is going to hell?

Judge Walker’s opinion fails to prove that marriage itself, not just civil equality which Californians already had (if they were two consenting adults), must be granted to all combinations of two consenting adults.  Failing to prove this, he then violated the 1st amendment by ordering that the Government establish the definition of the sacred religious practice of marriage, and he violated the 10th amendment as a federal judge by overturning an issue that is clearly not in our nations constitution and is therefore relegated to the states or the people.

If the government cannot protect the sacred religious definition of marriage that has been insanely entrusted to it, then government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

1st Amendment: 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.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share