It’s that time once again where I read a quote and you try to figure out who said it. This time out, it’s from a document, so there’s not so much a “who” said it as it is what document it’s from. It’s an important document, so I’ll give you that hint. And it has something to do with abuse of the IRS’s power.
And what do you do when your computer models don’t match reality? Do you reprogram the model? Climate alarmists take a different approach; they modify reality, or at least, the data that is supposed to represent reality. Listen in to find out what reality is, and why they’re having struggles dealing with it.
For this episode, I’m taking on just one topic; the “Hobby Lobby” case decided by the Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 30th, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision saying that companies that are “closely held”, as Hobby Lobby is, could opt out of the new ObamaCare requirement that they cover contraceptives for women, including drugs that induce abortions. Those on the Right were cheering this win for religious freedom, but it occurred to me that, since the vote was 5-4, we’re just one Supreme Court justice away from losing our religion, er, religious freedom. The ruling from the court did not couch it in First Amendment terms, per se, but make no mistake; had it gone the other way, it would have been a precedent for continued chipping away at this constitutional protecting. The whole idea that religion is something you can only practice in your house of worship – or “freedom of worship”, as it has be redefined by the Clintons and others on the Left – is what has brought us to this point.
What kinds of people or government consider religious liberty something to avoid? There are some countries out there that actively do that, but I’m not so sure we want to live in them.
Another part of the Hobby Lobby ruling you may not have heard about; a more strong affirmation that corporations can indeed have a religious component to them. From a story on Politico, “The court appeared to reject, 7-2, the Obama administration’s argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under RFRA.” RFRA stands for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law created by Democrats, which had massive bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Clinton. Just remember that when you hear Democrats complain about the ruling based on a law they supported.
As previous guest to Consider This, Dale Franks, put it, “If you don’t want your employer making decisions about your health, then you probably shouldn’t ask them to pay for it.”
A couple other bits of information typically lost among the snarkiness coming from the Left include the fact that Hobby Lobby employees make significantly more than the minimum wage; $14 an hour is the minimum for full-time, and $9.50 for part time. So what contraceptives won’t be covered, they can certainly afford them on their own.
But the other not-so-well-known bit of info is that Hobby Lobby insurance already covers 16 out of 20 contraceptive methods on the ObamaCare list. The other 4 are generally after-the-fact, morning-after type that are, in the belief of the Green family that owns the company, tantamount to abortion. You want to prevent conception? They’re with you. You want to end a life? Eh, not so much.
Postscript: During the episode, you’ll hear me talk about some information from a ReligionNews.com article. In it, they cite a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, released in April that said that a majority (55 percent) said yes, a for-profit business owner with religious objections to birth control be subject to the requirement, “even if it violates their owners’ personal religious beliefs”. However, I’ve recently seen a Weekly Standard article noting that a new Rasmussen poll finds that 49 percent of American voters support a religious exemption to the federal government’s contraception mandate, while 39 percent oppose such an exemption. They’re polls, so they really just measure attitudes at a point in time, and who knows what might have changed between April and June. Just an FYI.
What do the top 10 states that had the largest GDP growth in 2013 have in common? And once you know that, will knowing what works affect your vote? (Clearly, it doesn’t affect people all the same way. Just look at those who are ignoring what works.)
If you stop a policy that was taking guns off the street (out of the hands of the bad guys, specifically), and shootings rise, shouldn’t that tell you something? I mean, if you know something doesn’t work, shouldn’t you avoid it? (Clearly, not everyone looks at it the same way. Just look at those who are ignoring what doesn’t work.)
Who was singing the praises of VA health care, even as it was killing our vets? And who is more than happy to foist that particular kind of health care on all of us? (Clearly…aw, you know what I’m going to say.)
It’s been two years since I launched my own podcast, and once again I’m giving the 10 minute time limit the day off. I’m not going that much over, but hey, I did this for my 1st anniversary, so there’s precedent.
This time out, I’m focusing mostly on social conservatism. The idea of tradition, history and experience being a good reference for what we should do now works just as well for fiscal and political policy as it does for social policy. The idea is sound, regardless of where it’s applied. And that’s why I’ve been doing this show for 2 years; to get the word out that this idea of conservatism works. It isn’t always practiced as well as I would like by the guys I vote for, but at least I’m not ceding more ground.
Another problem we’ll see is that the folk least likely to give you your freedom are not conservatives, in spite of how conservatives generally get portrayed. While not a social issue per se, it does show the underlying intolerance of those who seek to remove all dissent, rather than have a healthy debate.
A little unfinished business from last episode about the troubles with veterans getting health care from the VA. In an opinion piece at the Huffington Post by H. A. Goodman, he argues that Republicans have been complaining about how bad the VA is, but hypocritically voted against a bill for various funding for the VA back in January. But there’s a problem with that, and it’s not something you’ll hear on most newscasts.
I’ll be discussing a human rights article written by the Hoover Institution, which asks the burning human rights question of our time.
One of the alternatives to ObamaCare that the Left suggested is that Medicare should just be expanded to cover everyone. It “worked”, so they said, and thus that would be a simpler way to get health care coverage expanded. But what do you mean by “worked”, actually? I’ll talk about what taking Medicare nationally might mean.
Keep an eye on Matt Sissel and the Pacific Legal Foundation’s lawsuit against ObamaCare. They are taking a tact that’s not been used before, that ultimately the Supreme Court will likely have to look into. Listen in for details.
The problems with the Veterans Administration health care system may not be solved just by more money. (That’s usually the case, isn’t it?) The issue may be the very socialized medicine framework that it uses. And what does that have to say for the results of ObamaCare?
Back in episode 73, I mentioned the case of Brendan Eich, the new CEO of a technology company, who was drummed out of his job because he had the audacity to give money to a cause he believed in. It wasn’t politically correct, however, and he paid for it with his job.
This time out, I have yet another example of folks who would describe themselves as “tolerant” unwilling to tolerate dissenting opinions, even, as with Eich, those opinions have nothing at all to do with the job at hand. But they lost their job because of the oxymoronic “Tolerance Police”.
And a commenter on my Google+ page has an interesting point to make on this subject. Can you be against an agenda without being against the people pushing that agenda?
I’ve always described the podcast as, not weekly or monthly, but “semi-irregularly”, not wanting to be tied down to a timetable. But I also know that a podcast that publishes its episodes on a regular schedule does tend to hold more listeners. I started out by releasing on Tuesdays, and recently I’ve been sending them out Friday, but in order to get better exposure (especially if you share the episode on social media (you are doing that, right?)), I’ve decided to change to Mondays. So nothing today but it’ll come out early Monday morning, and will continue to do so.
Unless it doesn’t. Or I change my mind. But I’ll really try to keep to this. Really.
Busy times, both at work and at home, have given me little time to prepare something for the podcast, so I’m going to throw a blog post out here. If you have any ideas for what you’d like me to cover, comment on this post, write me a firstname.lastname@example.org, or call me at 267-CALL-CT-0 (267-225-5280).
What about Benghazi? (ABC News)
When the latest memo to come out of the Benghazi investigation came out…
OK, let me back up. Actually, the memo was never given to the Congressional investigation. It took a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch for this memo to come out. So for starters, it really looks like the administration did not want this out in public.
The thrust of the message was clear: Protect Obama’s image (and re-election efforts) at all costs; American interests and the American public’s right to know be damned. It contained four bullet points:
–”To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;
–”To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;
–”To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;
–”To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Remember, this all happened in the heat of the President’s re-election campaign. As to the bullet points, we now know that the US was not doing everything it could to protect the consulate, the protest were not rotted in an Internet video (and the administration knew that almost immediately after the incident), we did not bring anyone to justice (not even now, 20 months after the incident), which goes to show that the President and the Administration do not have strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.
But the kiester-covering was in full swing and scapegoats were worth their weight in gold.
In his congressional testimony, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell said that then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is the one who linked the video to the Benghazi attacks but that the video was not part of the CIA analysis. In other words, the administration made it up out of whole cloth to deflect blame for its policy failures in relaxing the war on terror…
Indeed, the day after the event:
An email on Sept. 12, 2012, to Rice from Payton Knopf, deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, confirmed the attacks were “planned in advance” and “complex,” not spontaneous in reaction to a video.
The fact that they, indeed, speak to the Benghazi issues specifically, but the administration hung on to these memos and did not give them to Darrell Issa and the committee, shows just how revealing they are.
But only now are the mainstream media noticing this story. The Benghazi hearings have been pitifully covered. The idea that this has been a “Fox News story” (as though they made it up) only came because they gave it the coverage it deserved, while the rest of the media sat on its collective hands. Now, even ABC news reporters found themselves amazed at the stonewalling and dissembling.
But even with that, ABC has been very reluctant to report on it. Even the President has called out Fox on this — no other network — so you know it’s been getting short shrift elsewhere. And at other networks, without coming out directly and saying it, the news executives suddenly wouldn’t find time to report on it.
Yes, the daily interviews from the committee can be yawners, and it’s not always breaking news. That much is true. But it’s also true that the latest revelations are news, and even that is getting reported primarily by Fox.
Oh, and MSNBC? Yeah, never mind about them. If it doesn’t have a link to Chris Christie and “Bridgegate” (where nobody died), they don’t care much about it.
This is important. If you news outlet isn’t covering it, you may need to switch sources.