Violation of Common Sense

In a 5-4 decision, the SC has struck another blow to the ACA stating that a requirement of private employers to pay for contraceptive coverage is a violation of their religious freedom and conscience as written into the First Amendment. A common sense decision that everyone should understand but evidently 4 SC justices and a multitude of statist progressive don’t. Hobby Lobby, and the many other private companies that objected to this mandate, can not and do not force any woman to work for them, so when a woman does independently and of free will choose to work for that company, how in the world does she have the right to dictate to them what insurance coverage they should offer? That is absurd.

In another ruling that will rock the progressive world, and in another 5-4 decision, in-home health care workers will not be required to pay union dues which served to strengthen the collective bargaining position of the public unions in Illinois. This again is a victory for individuality and freedom of expression and a blow against big union corruption and political graft.

This has been a bad year so far for statism and progressivism and in turn a great year for individual liberty and conservatism. Let’s keep the momentum going.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Violation of Common Sense

  1. Cluster June 30, 2014 / 11:26 am

    On another note – that famous Catholic Nancy Pelosi visited the border this weekend:

    “This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity,” Mrs. Pelosi said, Fox News reported. “If you believe as we do that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect — what we saw in those [holding] rooms was a dazzling, sparkling array of God’s children, worthy of respect.”

    What an unbelievable opportunity for the multi millionaire Nancy Pelosi to lead the way and show us what selfless Christianity is all about. I am inspired just thinking of the constructive, positive things that lay ahead for those children that Nancy will be providing. At this moment, I am sure she is coordinating shelter, food and clothing for those children – all at her cost. What better way to show America how progressives, and of course Catholic progressives, go the extra mile in serving humanity.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/nancy-pelosi-border-breach-opportunity-serve-spark/#ixzz368VqBJEf

    • Amazona June 30, 2014 / 1:03 pm

      Good point, though I would like to ask Nancy just when that “spark of divinity” was lit. After all, she supports abortion on demand, which is kind of contradictory to believing that all children have a “…spark of divinity….” and are “..God’s children, worthy of respect…” Perhaps if she understood that the reason many if not most of these children stood before her, in a “…dazzling, sparkling array of God’s children…” is because the cultures of Mexico and Central America abhor abortion.

      But you are right—this truly IS an opportunity, for Nancy to walk the walk and provide the loving care these children need. After all, it is her administration that has invited them, through its issuance of “permisos” or permission to come and stay.

  2. Cluster July 1, 2014 / 8:35 am

    LOL. Great point. Exactly when was the “spark of divinity” lit?? I have a feeling it was at the moment they became political props but I sure would like to hear Nancy answer that question.

    Meanwhile, ISIS continues to openly parade around the weaponry that they have captured, giving us an excellent opportunity to air strike and obliterate their new cache, but unfortunately our President was busy hosting an LGBT crowd yesterday at the White House and joking about crack cocaine. Nice.

  3. tiredoflibbs July 1, 2014 / 12:00 pm

    “Meanwhile, ISIS continues to openly parade around the weaponry that they have captured”

    I seem to recall that the SCUD was another one of those “banned” weapons that Saddam was supposedly had destroyed or that Clinton had taken out (if you believe the lefty dumbed down talking points). Well, we all know that Saddam did what he had to do and told the truth about everything, regardless of the fact that the UN themselves reported missing weapons, precursors, agents, etc. etc.

    Meanwhile the pResident continues to deflect, evade and avoid the issues that have been revealed of his “shortcomings” (read FAILURE) as pResident.

  4. Amazona July 1, 2014 / 12:23 pm

    You gotta love that White House Delusion Factory. As they keep digging themselves in, deeper and deeper, we don’t even need to keep handing them new shovels. They seem to have an endless supply. From the new White House spokesliar:

    “Well, as the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you is, he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far … is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses… We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court.”

    Most glaring, of course, is the repeated effort to convey some sort of erudition and authority to the opinion of Obama by repeatedly claiming he is a “constitutional lawyer”. (The effort to create the impression of Obama EVER engaging in a thoughtful “legal analysis” is just plain funny, in a sad pathetic kind of way.) Running a close second is the whine that the SCOTUS decision really just “exposed” a “problem”—-which is, according to the hysterics on the Left, that some women might just have to take some personal responsibility for their sexual decisions and pony up the price of a weekly cup of coffee at Starbuck’s to pay for their own contraception.

    Oh, the HORROR!!!!!

    Look at the bizarre way the White House has chosen to see this decision, or at least how it has decided to present it to the press: It is not a decision about religious freedom, it is really about “…a group of women of an indeterminate size…” held hostage, according to these spinners, to the religious views of their bosses. Awwwww. But since when does the size of a “group of women” have anything to do with anything? They can, individually or as a “a group of ……indeterminate size” have all the contraception they desire, no matter what religious views are held by their bosses. And if it is so important to them that their contraception be paid for by OPM, then they have absolute freedom to find bosses who don’t mind paying for it. THIS is “freedom of choice”. Not one iota of personal liberty has been compromised by this decision, but the freedom to live according to the dictates of one’s personal religion has been protected.

    Freedom seems to really freak out the Left. It seems that every time there is a ruling that protects the liberty of the individual, the Left scurries to recast it as some sort of infringement on the freedom of others, though it takes minimal observation to see that the only thing lost to the whiners is the ability to dictate how others will live their lives. Time and time again we see the Left going into panic mode when their ability to impose their will on others is thwarted.

    There is a lesson to be learned from this, and that is that the most important thing to the Left IS the ability to impose its will on others.

    • Cluster July 1, 2014 / 1:56 pm

      It seems that every time there is a ruling that protects the liberty of the individual, the Left scurries to recast it as some sort of infringement on the freedom of others, though it takes minimal observation to see that the only thing lost to the whiners is the ability to dictate how others will live their lives. Time and time again we see the Left going into panic mode when their ability to impose their will on others is thwarted.

      That is it in a nutshell.

      • Amazona July 1, 2014 / 2:09 pm

        The question is, can we present this to the American voter in a way he or she can understand? The Left cloaks its forays into personal liberties in such a dazzling array of noble-sounding issues it is hard to break through the noise to get to the truth. They find the usurpation of personal freedom just fine and dandy when it advances their agendas and fits into their issues.

        What always amazes me about Lefty sheeple is their inability to take one step further, and look at how they would feel if the exact same criteria of imposing things were to be done by The Other Side. What if, for example, a political movement were to rule that NO employer could EVER offer any form of contraception in any employment benefit package? It’s the other side of the coin from saying every employer HAS to do this, but the average LIV can’t seem to turn that coin over and spend a minute or two connecting the dots.

        It’s fine for President Obama to merely make laws he wants made, and to brag about bypassing Congress if they won’t give him this way. Can you imagine the tsunami of outrage from the Left if President Cruz or President Walker were to do such a thing? (There would be one from the Right, too, because the Right understands that subversion of the Constitution is wrong, and illegal, no matter who does it. The difference would be that if the Left were to be indignant, the Complicit Agenda Media would finally find a voice, and the Leftist mobs would have a new rallying cry.)

    • Amazona July 1, 2014 / 2:13 pm

      Really, though—did anyone ever conceive of a world in which Robert Gibbs would, by comparison, look intelligent and honest? In which Jay Carney would appear credible?

      This statement is so bizarre, at first I thought it was a joke, a parody of smug White House self-praise.

      • Amazona July 1, 2014 / 2:52 pm

        Maybe they thought having a press secretary named Josh EARNEST would make people think what he says can be believed. After all, their target audience is people who think Liberal means liberal, and Progressive means progressive, and if you use the word “marry” it means that a same-sex couple is, well, married. Clearly they never go beyond the word, so it might work on them.

        Just as repeatedly claiming Obama is a “constitutional lawyer” and actually engages in legal analysis might make some of the sheeple baaaaaa in admiration.

  5. Amazona July 1, 2014 / 1:59 pm

    Regarding The U.S. Border Patrol’s late May interviews of 230 adults and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala:

    “According to the document, the agents interviewed 230 adults and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala on May 28, 2014. The focus, the document says, was to “obtain a general consensus as to why” the border crossers “are migrating en masse” into the country through the Rio Grande Valley.

    The word “amnesty” doesn’t appear in the summary of results. Also, the document says in many cases, “the subjects mentioned more than one reason,” including gang-related violence, extreme poverty, high unemployment, poor living conditions and subpar educational circumstances — with many women mentioning domestic abuse.

    Still, the document says, the main reason interviewed individuals “chose this particular time to migrate” was to “take advantage of the ‘new’ U.S. ‘law’ that grants a ‘free pass’ or permit (referred to as ‘permisos’) being issued by the U.S. government to female adult” non-Mexicans “traveling with minors and to” unaccompanied children.”

    I wonder when this “new US law” went into effect. It clearly did not apply to Elian Gonzales.

  6. Amazona July 1, 2014 / 4:06 pm

    Some points of interest: (From an article in Time Magazine)

    ”[White House spokesman Josh] Earnest quickly added that President Obama, who has been touring the country (1) promoting his ability to work around Congress, plans no no immediate executive actions to remedy the situation created by the Hobby Lobby ruling. (2)“The Supreme Court was ruling on the application of a specific law that was passed by Congress,” Earnest said. “So what we’d like is for Congress to take action to pass another law that would address this problem.”

    This is a notable departure in strategy for the White House that is likely to increase the visibility of the issue in an election year, while delaying the arrival of a solution for those women (3)who will now be denied certain contraceptive coverage. All signs Monday pointed to the fact that Democrats would rather stage a political fight over the issue than quickly resolve it for the affected women. Both the Democratic Party and the White House Twitter accounts spend much of the day rallying people to outrage on social media over the decision.”

    Hmmmm. So many lies, so little time.

    (1) ”Promoting Obama’s ability to work around Congress.” This is not a lie, as he not only works around Congress by simply ignoring it and taking on its legislative duties, he is quite blatant about it. I highlight only because it is mentioned so casually, as if this is nothing of particular interest much less anything to be concerned about. “The President is subverting the United States Constitution by overriding its assignment of legislative duties. Ho hum.” And the comment that the President “plans no immediate executive actions to remedy the situation” is an implication that he will at some time, just not immediately, come up with some executive action, overriding the Supreme Court, because after all he has the authority to do whatever he pleases, and furthermore no one else should be more concerned about this than the earnest Mr. Earnest, who seems to take for granted that the president could, if he felt like, plan an executive action “..to remedy the situation…” (That is, to “remedy the situation” of people being able to exercise religious freedom.)

    (2) The mandate was not part of the original law and was included later, “by fiat” in regulations. So it was not “…a specific law that was passed by Congress..” (We have to remember that this is the same talking head who repeatedly claimed Obama is a “constitutional lawyer”)

    (3) No one is denied anything. No one. Any woman who wants abortificants can obtain them. Any woman who wants an insurance policy that pays for them can get one, either on her own or by working for an employer whose benefits include them. To claim anyone was DENIED anything is simply a bald-faced, Complicit Agenda Media, lie.

    Anyone interested in facts? How about the fact that Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan already provides “…coverage for 16 different contraceptives, just not ones that act after conception…” So Time, while lying in its claim that some women will be DENIED “certain contraceptive coverage” tried to cover its donkey by using the word “certain”. They seem to think they have plausible deniability when called on their lie by falling back on the claim that they never said these women were denied ALL “contraceptive coverage”. However, Time clearly needs to hire at least one educated proofreader, who could point out that abortificants are not “contraceptives” as they do nothing to hinder conception, merely kill off the resulting human being.

    Hence the objection by Hobby Lobby.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/07/01/white-house-reveals-its-strategy-after-supreme-hobby-lobby-defeat/

    • Cluster July 1, 2014 / 8:44 pm

      It does not get any more dishonest than this:

      But then again, when have Democrats ever been concerned with honesty??

      If you like your Supreme Court decision, you can keep it.

  7. Retired Spook July 2, 2014 / 9:24 am

    What’s happening on our southern border violates, not just common sense, but the law as well. Frightening reports of gag orders on aid workers and border patrol as well as all sorts of contagious diseases being brought in by illegals. It all sounds pretty deliberate to me.

    • Cluster July 2, 2014 / 11:40 am

      A consequence of Obama’s unilateral decision on the DREAM Act in my opinion. And now it is backfiring. Obama just doesn’t think things through and still has more community organizer in him, rather than executive “know how” – and this country is suffering greatly because of it.

    • tiredoflibbs July 3, 2014 / 6:37 pm

      Deliberate? – asks one mindless drone….

      Yes.

      From Fed Biz Ops.gov website.

      Now pay attention proggy drones with extremely short attention spans and inability to connect the dots…..

      DATED JAN 29, 2014

      https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c6d7c0050b912fbc917a46d6709d38bd&tab=core&tabmode=list&=s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c6d7c0050b912fbc917a46d6709d38bd&tab=core&tabmode=list&

      Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children
      From the document in the upper right hand side of page “Juvenile Transport:

      A. Introduction

      U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has a continuing and mission critical responsibility for accepting custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from U.S. Border Patrol and other Federal agencies and transporting these juveniles to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States. ICE is seeking the services of a responsible vendor that shares the philosophy of treating all UAC with dignity and respect, while adhering to standard operating procedures and policies that allow for an effective, efficient, and incident free transport. The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier), property inventory, providing juveniles with meals, drafting reports, generating transport documents, maintaining/stocking daily supplies, providing and issuing clothing as needed, coordinating with DHS and HHS staff, travel coordination, limited stationary guard services to accommodate for trip disruptions due to inclement weather, faulty equipment, or other exigent circumstances. In emergency situations, the Contractor shall be called on to provide temporary shelter locations (such as trailers) with shower facilities for juveniles who are pending placement with HHS when bed space is unavailable nationwide for extended periods of time. The Contractor shall provide temporary guard services and other support as necessary during these emergencies.

      In addition, the Contractor shall have personnel who are able to communicate with juveniles in their own designated language(s). While this may not require each employee to be fluent in all of the encountered languages, personnel should have access to and knowledge of translation services.
      ———

      65,000? Yes, the White House planned this “crisis”. But apologists from the left will never place blame where it belongs. “It’s the Republicans fault.” Because they won’t cave in to the Democrats. The proggies always violate common sense, because they have none.

      Pathetic.

      • Amazona July 3, 2014 / 10:01 pm

        It is all deliberate. Evidently part of the tactic has been to try to sluff off the unending litany of failures as mere competence, but as time goes on, as more and more disgusted people step up to reveal communications and conversations, as the events move beyond clumsy or stupid into overt sabotage of the country, the blundering fool image is being replaced by one of a purposeful anti-American saboteur and a cadre of focused operatives.

        Be sure to thank every Obama voter you see.

      • Cluster July 4, 2014 / 7:55 am

        Keep in mind – just 5 out of 9 SC Justices voted to uphold the Constitution. As Rush said, “we are not advancing anything. We’re just barely holding on”.

  8. bozo July 3, 2014 / 4:03 am

    “The government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections,” writes Alito.

    Gotta love Alito’s assertion that the government (read “taxpayers”) could just pay for contraception instead of employers. Who knew he was a universal coverage advocate? And – shockingly – that he thinks almighty corporations have MORE religious freedom than us lowly taxpayers…that’s gotta hurt.

    • Amazona July 3, 2014 / 7:49 am

      Nahhhhh—the only thing that’s “gotta hurt” is you trying to think. I know the product you manage to excrete is pretty painful to read.

      I know, I know, your obsession with trying to come up with something, anything, to express your loathing for —— well, whatever it is that stirs you to such effort —- is overpowering. But you really should work on restraining it.

      I’m pretty sure that if you had the integrity, or intellect, or inclination, to examine Alito’s writings, you would see that he doesn’t think the government should pay for any of this. But he is restricted to ruling on ACA issues within the boundaries of existing ACA law, at least until each aspect has been challenged, and under this law Uncle Sugar is supposed to pay for EVERYTHING.

      As for your last sentence, well, it stands on its own as a tribute to your cluelessness and stupidity.

      You could spare yourself the trouble of trying to come up with something witty and scathing, and the relentless failure to do so, by simply copying this statement and posting it every time you get the urge to lurch in here.

      I am politically illiterate and intend to stay that way, but I align myself with a political movement because it validates my inherent and overweening need to be hostile and rude. They have identified an opponent and given me permission to hurl invective at it, under the pretense that I am not just expressing a personality disorder but am really a political commentator, thereby feeding not only my pathology but my ego. So I will be moved to churn up something, no matter how idiotic or inane, every now and then, and to hurl it at an opponent I understand no better than the system I support through my mindless attacks on its opposition. Please consider this my latest post and include it in your blog. Thank you. Bozo.”

      Then you won’t have to strain so hard to expel the mental excrement that you then present for admiration, and you will have the added advantage of finally posting something accurate.

    • Cluster July 3, 2014 / 8:56 am

      What we “gotta love” is your willful resistance to think outside the tolitarian box. Let’s consider a few facts:

      1. Hobby Lobby stills offers coverage on 16 out of 20 contraceptives
      2. The other 4 methods, which are considered abortifacients, are still available to be purchased at the women’s own expense, or depending on income, available through the government.
      3. Women are not forced to work for Hobby Lobby and if these 4 contraceptive methods are of paramount importance to them, they are free to choose another employer who offers them. Otherwise known as “choice” – a term I know I know you are familiar with.

  9. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) July 3, 2014 / 11:45 am

    if these 4 contraceptive methods are of paramount importance to them, they are free to choose another employer who offers them.

    Unfortunately, they’re not likely to find similar jobs with other employers that pay nearly double minimum wage as Hobby Lobby does. What a horrible dilemma — take a huge pay cut or pay for your own morning after pill. Sucks to be them.

  10. tiredoflibbs July 5, 2014 / 6:36 pm

    Mindless Proggy Drone: “There is no Constitutional protection against being offended.”

    And yet, these are the same drones who whine and complain about “Redskins” and try to use the strong-arm of government to force them to change it. Or calling for the firing of a private individual at a private company because he made a contribution to a voting of a LAW that the proggies did not agree with. Or using IRS leaked files of other political contributors to PAC groups they don’t like.

    Common sense is foreign to these useful idiots.

Comments are closed.