Sunday, November 23, 2014

"Bush and Reagan Did It Too!"- Obama's Ridiculous Defense of His Executive Amnesty

This morning, ABC's George Stephanopoulos questioned President Obama about his executive actions on illegal immigration, and challenged him on the Democrat talking point that in recent days has become their central defense- "Reagan and Bush did it too."

Stephanopoulos noted, "They were acting after the bills were passed, not because Congress did not act."

Obama responded, "I’m not sure that argues in favor. If Congress acted specifically and left something out and then a President goes ahead right afterwards and does more than Congress agreed to, it’s actually not different. It’s similar"

First of all, similar and equal are two different concepts. Secondly, this action is in no way equivalent to what Reagan and Bush 41 did. Third, "someone else did it" is a sorry excuse for a defense, invoked when no valid defense exists. Just because someone else did it, it doesn't mean it was right. The fact that Democrats are rallying around this talking point shows that they know the authority for Obama's actions truly does not exist. They're hoping that tying it to Reagan and Bush will somehow silence Republican opponents for fear that they might tarnish the reputation of what Democrats so often refer to as their "hero." It's a blatant political bluff, and Republicans have to call them on it at every opportunity.

Obama's actions have essentially granted amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants, which is more than Reagan and Bush combined. Rather than acting upon a law passed by Congress, Obama is directing his administration to ignore existing law because Congress did not pass the bill he wanted them to pass. His stated reasoning amounts to "they didn't do what they were told, so I can officially do whatever I want now." That's not leadership, it's a hissie fit. Obama has neither the ability nor the longing to compromise and find solutions all can agree on. He wants it his way, and his narcissistic ego tells him that only his way will work. Leadership requires sacrifice and humility, neither of which are in Obama's arsenal. That's one of the biggest differences between Reagan, who got things done with a Democrat Congress, and Obama, who refuses to even try to work with Republicans.

When Reagan and Bush exercised executive authority on immigration, they were acting by the authority given to them by bills passed by Congress, which they each signed into law during their respective terms. Each law aimed to quell the illegal immigration issue, and each law gave the president authority to exercise discretion with implementation. For example, the 1986 bill signed into law by Ronald Reagan- which he compromised on despite the wishes of his base- gave full amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants (the promise was "amnesty now, tough execution of laws later" and it failed miserably). They ran into problems during the implementation, because some members of immigrant families were eligible for amnesty under the 1986 law, while others were not. So in order to better implement and enforce the law in accordance with its intention (one of Obama's favorite excuses for executive actions), Reagan took executive action to keep families together. That's an argument for executive discretion that has held up in court numerous times (even for Obama). The only way Reagan's decision is "similar" to Obama's is the concept of "keeping families together" (though we know that's not Obama's true motivation ). Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, in America the ends do not justify the means, especially when the means are unconstitutional actions taken by a President.

In the case of Amnesty 2014, Obama had no law to act upon. He created a new law out of nothing, on his own, without Congress, which is 100% unconstitutional. The president has executive authority to implement laws. He does not have authority to create laws from nothing. That's exactly what he did Thursday night. He's not only choosing to ignore existing law, he publicly proclaimed it in a prime-time address. There's a fine line between hubris and a God complex, and on Thursday night Obama made the case that he's officially fallen so far into the latter that he's lost sight of that line. He's not doing this for families. He sees immigrants not as people, but as votes. He believes they are nothing more than serfs- servants to his will, and the will of the Democratic party. His profoundly bigoted reference to immigrants as "those who pick our fruit and make our beds" proves that beyond all doubt. Obama is doing this because he lost big in the midterms and knows he has no hope of legally granting amnesty, which he thinks is will guarantee Democrats the White House for decades. He's doing it because he truly believes that only he knows what is best for us, even though he has no idea who we are, or what we really want or need. He's doing this because he has no clue how to negotiate, compromise, bring both sides to the table or do anything else a true leader must do every day. He can't lead, so he does whatever he wants, while the media covers for him. If a Republican had done the same thing- with tax laws or gun laws or what have you- completely nullifying existing law buy issuing an executive order to ignore it, he would have been vigorously attacked by the media, vilified by Democrats across America and most likely impeached before Christmas. But since it's Obama and they think it will create 5 million new Democrat voters, he gets a pass. Yet Republicans are attacked by the media and vilified by Democrats anyway. Funny how that works...

Bottom line: Obama's use of executive action to rewrite our immigration laws is unconstitutional, and is in no way justified by the actions of his predecessors. Republicans must take every step they can and use every power at their disposal to rein in the President on this. It's not just about this President's actions on this particular issue. It's so much bigger than that. It's about the vital separation of powers upon which our Constitution is based. We cannot allow one branch of government to steal power it does not have, whether we agree with the goal or not. To much power in the executive, power like that which Obama has conjured out of thin air to exact his immigration agenda, will be the end of our republic. A president with the authority to unilaterally nullify the actions of the legislature, is not a president at all. That is a king. A dictator. A despot. A tyrant. Whatever label you choose, it's everything our founder's designed the Constitution to protect us from. It cannot be allowed. One way or another, this action must be struck down. The future of our republic depends on it.

God Bless.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

House Intel Committee Releases Its Benghazi Report- Questions Remain Unanswered

In case you didn't notice, the House Intelligence Committee released it's official report on it's investigation into the September 11, 2012 attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi. The report does quell a lot of rumors about the attacks. However, the report also states 3 important things that don't exactly put all questions to rest- 1 being about preparedness before the attack, and the other 2 being about the administration's actions after the attack:

Before: "The Committee, however, received evidence that the State Department security personnel, resources and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required CIA assistance"

You can spin this left or right depending on your views, but what is says unequivocally is that at some point decisions were made that rendered the diplomatic facility in Benghazi unable to withstand an attack of any size. Someone somewhere failed to foresee the unintended consequences of those decisions, and lives were lost because of it. To this day, NO ONE has been held accountable for this.

After: "The early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a  stream of contradictory evidence that came in after the attacks."

"The process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for- and which were used for Ambassador Rice's public appearances- was flawed. HPSCI asked for those talking points solely to aid Members' ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time, and mistakes were made in the process of how those talking points were developed."

The left will spin this as a simple clerical error, and the right will claim it's "proof" of deliberate concealment of the facts. Neither of those can be proved. What can be proved is that in the midst of an ongoing investigation, in the first days and weeks after, when no answers were yet clear, inaccurate information was given to the American public. Whether by accident or design, this is a fact.

Now, the Obama Administration is quite famous for refusing to comment on ongoing investigations, and most of the time their stated reasoning is that they just don't want to comment one way or the other before all of the facts are known. That's actually good policy, when it's done because of it's merits and not used as a political shield. However, in the case of Benghazi, the Administration began to make bold assertions about only one possible cause, even though they clearly had contradictory evidence coming in every day. Rather than give all possible causes and decline to declare any of them to be "the" cause, they picked one- the Youtube video- and ran with it until enough evidence became available to the public that they had to backtrack. Why break suddenly with a longstanding policy in this particular case, with so many unanswered questions swirling and so much contradictory evidence being assessed?

As you know, all of this took place in the run up to an election 6 weeks away, while the President was campaigning on Al Qaeda being "on the run." Even if you accept the Administration's arguments about "core" Al Qeada being "decimated, I think we can all agree that this kind of attack being so close to an election would hurt any incumbent President, regardless of party, unless they could find a way to effectively explain it away and duck the public's blame. No one can prove that the talking points were DELIBERATELY designed to avoid political fallout, but it can be, and has been proved that the Obama Administration chose to comment on an ongoing investigation, under the aforementioned circumstances, even though they've made it a policy throughout their tenure NOT to do exactly that. Was it deliberate? Maybe. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps. Was it a bad decision? Damn right. Had they chosen to simply wait to comment on the people involved and their motivations until after all of the facts had come out, they would have looked much less guilty of something nefarious, if at all.

As I said, the report puts a lot of rumors to rest. What it does not do is prove one way or the other whether the decisions made in the immediate aftermath were designed to avoid a political disaster for the President. As is the case with any scandal, the public knows what happened on September 11, 2012, but they are more concerned with whether or not a cover up took place. They can accept that mistakes were made, but if they can't trust that the government did not withhold information in order to avoid political backlash, they get angry and they express that anger at the ballot box. I see no proof of cover up in this report, nor do I see proof that it didn't happen.

Consider the facts, consider the circumstances and consider what your own common sense tells you to be true. Don't take my word for anything. You decide what you think happened. That is how it should always be.

God Bless.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

All you need to know about Michael Brown, Darren Wilson and Ferguson, MO

As a St. Louis resident and a native of an Illinois town just outside of St. Louis, I'm very proud and protective of the Gateway City and her reputation. I don't like the way my city is being portrayed in the media. There's a lot of finger pointing and white liberal guilt flowing through the airwaves, and distorting the truth. That being said, here are 5 points that EVERYONE (everyone out there arguing about it) on BOTH sides of the Ferguson debate better get straight:

1. There are still too many unanswered questions

2. Very little is definitive in either direction, and new evidence is coming out every day

3. No charges have been filed

4. No conclusions about fault or justification have been drawn by law enforcement 

5. The investigation is not complete

To the media, and everyone else who hasn't seen all of the evidence: Stop assuming, stop declaring that you "know" what happened and stop letting people exploit this city. Don't allow people who don't give a damn about St. Louis or Ferguson make a profit, monetarily or politically,  from this terrible situation. Don't let the media or anyone else form your opinion for you. Wait, watch and let the truth come out- whatever that truth may be.

God Bless.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Dear GOP: THIS Is How You Respond To Critics...

I've seen this come up a lot recently, and since no Republican politician seems to have the oratory ability to articulate a good response, I've come up with one that I think illustrates the point pretty well. Feel free to use it...

LIBERAL: Republicans are such hypocrites, complaining about Obamacare being so terrible and then complaining when the President changes it. You can't have it both ways!

Conservatives are not trying to have it both ways on Obamacare. We hear these arguments that say "they're full of it because they're mad that a law they hate isn't being implemented". That's a false premise folks, and a flimsy argument by any measure.

First, the law is absolutely being implemented, just not by the timeline that was written into the law. On a pure separation of powers basis, the President can't change laws without Congress, regardless of whether we like the law or not (or whether the President's poll numbers are slipping). It's not hypocritical at all to defend the Constitution even when it means a law you disagree with will be implemented because of it (quite the opposite actually, that's kinda what our politicians promise to do when they're sworn in...).

Second, it's not about the law not being implemented. It's about a President, who forced this massive overhaul of our healthcare system on us changing the law on his own, which he does not have the authority to do, for the sole purpose of saving political face. THAT is what we're upset about. Obama and Congressional Democrats rammed this through, against public opinion, using a backdoor procedure, while lying to all of us about its merits. It's about the President and Democrats unilaterally changing and selectively enforcing their own legacy law because it's hurting the American people, hurting our economy, and most importantly to them- it's hurting their poll numbers. THAT is what we're upset about. Obama and Congressional Democrats lied to our faces, and instead of fixing the problems created by this train wreck, they've merely slowed the drip of implementation, hoping either that the American people won't notice, or that they're too dependent on government to risk doing anything about it. By unilaterally changing the law without going through the prescribed constitutional procedure, Obama and the Democrats are still trying to hide the truth about this law from the American people. Despite all of the bad we know it's doing, and will continue to do, they've decided that their way of doing things is better, and more "fair", regardless of the actual outcome. That's not leadership, it's a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Think about it- it's like a CEO setting all prices for his company's products at $.01, because he thinks it's better for business and more "fair", then refusing to admit he was wrong and not changing his policies once the company starts to go bankrupt and the mass layoffs begin. THAT is what Obama and the Democrats are doing with Obamacare. It makes no sense to anyone who looks at this from a practical, logical standpoint. But Obama and the Democrats aren't concerned with logic and practicality. They're only concern is ideology. THAT is why we're upset. It's not hypocrisy, it's patriotism in it's purest form.

The next time you hear someone calling Republicans hypocrites for opposing Obama's executive actions on Obamacare, stop them in their tracks and set the record straight. Although, i certainly can't promise they'll be able to follow cogent reasoning...

God Bless.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Border Crisis Part I: The Role Of Government

There are plenty of people talking about the politics and the optics  of the situation at our southern border. We're seeing a lot of pundits hitting hard on the President's apparent lack of "give a damn". I could do that too, but instead I'm gonna take a different direction on this immigration crisis. I want to draw attention to what many claim are the root causes of this problem: poverty and crime. Putting aside the conspiracy theories and hidden agendas, let's assume, just for a moment, that these are the real causes of this massive wave of illegal immigration. Let's assume they're responsible for most illegal immigration. The President and other Liberals would have you believe that the solution is money- give everyone whatever they "need" (which the government gets to dictate for all 330+ million of us) and the problem goes away. History tells us repeatedly that this is not the case. The truth is, government cannot, at least at the federal level, solve this problem. It's too dysfunctional and our country is too vast and diverse for a federal solution to have any concrete, lasting effect (New Deal, Great Society, Drug War- all failures). The problem can only be solved by local government and private entities. Think about it, some areas are better off than others. Some states are better off than others. Try as it might, the federal government has been unable to change this after more than a century of progressivism. It's because State/local governments and private organizations in some areas are able to tackle tough social issues by addressing the specific needs of their area. Local governments and private entities are closer and more accountable to the people. They know the people, the land, the culture, and the livelihoods better than any one in Washington DC ever could. So it stands to reason that they're better equipped to address problems like crime and poverty, in a way that works well for their city, county or state. It just makes sense. When you try to use one-size-fits-all solutions for a country our size, with all the different cultures and local economies we find throughout the nation, it WILL NOT WORK- PERIOD.

Understand this: like most Americans, I have a deep empathy for those in dire situations that they can't control. That's true for those in America who can't make ends meet no matter how hard they try, and it's just as true for the children trekking thousands of miles to the US seeking freedom from the plight of their native countries (I realize there are adults and gang members coming too, but I'm focusing on fixing what liberals claim is the problem in order to show that their solution is no solution at all). I feel very badly for the children. I wish that I had the money and the tools to help everyone in NEED. Hell, if the government would let us keep more of our money and stop taxing the hell out of those most capable of helping, we'd be able to address these problems ourselves (the more we make the more we can help, and unlike rich Liberals we don't need a law to coerce us into charity). Instead we're forced, through taxation, to contribute our money to failing policies and programs that the government needs for votes, but that actually do more harm than good and are bankrupting our nation. That's not a solution, it's a farce.

Right about now is when the liberal "he hates Social Security and old people" argument rears it's head. I'm not against safety nets, but I am against NOT doing anything to fix or revamp a program that will cripple us if left unchecked. This is America, the land of innovation and opportunity. We can do better. We can fix our failing entitlement programs, or restructure them to be better. Anyone who says we don't need to fix these programs is lying to you in the name of votes and power. In the private sector, over time new ideas come along, and upgrades are made. In government the first draft of a policy is almost always the final draft, especially once it creates dependency. Politicians cling desperately to old, outdated, failing policies because they care more about power and legacy than they do about actually doing what is right. We need to change our way of thinking, and start utilizing new ideas, new technologies and new policies.

Like any sane person, I don't want people to suffer through circumstances they cannot control. Where I part with liberals like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Luis Gutierrez is at the role of government in all of this. I don't believe government should take an active roll in trying to rid the country (and the world, as liberals now want to do with the tens of thousands coming over the border) of every ounce of poverty and strife. I'm all for providing opportunity, promoting good life decision making and establishing safety nets, but when it comes to dumping billions of dollars into giving away fish, while teaching no one to use a reel, I'm in the "no" camp. The government can't keep doling out food and clothes, and medical care, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, without doing anything about the root causes of poverty and crime. We can't even begin to do that abroad until we make extreme progress here. Let's solve these problems at home, and set an example for our allies and neighbors. Let's show them how to solve their own problems rather than relying on other countries to do it for them. I understand wanting to help, but we just don't have the resources to help everyone. We can't even get our veterans or our own poor taken care of, so how can we be any good to the poor of the world?

Now some might ask, "How is eradicating poverty and hunger any different from eradicating terrorism?" The answer is much simpler than most politicians would have you believe: Poverty and hunger can be best handled at local levels by private entities (for reasons I've already described) while threats to a nation's sovereignty, like terrorism, are best handled by central governments and established military forces (and it's actually spelled out that way in our Constitution). I have no problem with lending a hand up when it comes to the poor. But to do that we need to get ourselves right first, then give others the blueprint for success. We can't solve these problems with hand outs that are nothing more than a bandaid on a bullet hole. We have to look at this with fresh eyes, and we have to go after the causes, not the symptoms...

Border Crisis Part II: Education, Privatization and Economic Liberation

I believe every major domestic issue we face is rooted in a lack of basic education. What I mean is, we don't have any central values being taught to our children in the public school system. We have no principles for success being taught in our schools. We teach plenty of facts and theories, but no virtues. As a nation, we're not teaching young people to care and to be involved and to exercise and defend their inalienable rights, so as a whole, they don't. We don't champion hard work, individual talent and individual responsibility, so those concepts are lost on much of the nation. We don't emphasize the importance of being informed about what's going on in the world, so people just don't pay attention. Why do you think private schools churn out so many successful kids? It's not money, it's substance. They usually have a set of values that are reflected in the curriculum and in the staff. That's what public schools should be doing as well. There are plenty of kids that come out of public school and go on to be great successes, but it's because somewhere along the line, from parents or specific teachers or friends or some other source, they learned the values and virtues that are vital to success. We need to start incorporating these lessons system wide, from day one of kindergarten to high school graduation day. If we teach every kid the principles and virtues necessary for success, the number of kids graduating college and going on to success will automatically rise exponentially. It's not rocket science, it's the law of averages (and common sense). Until we address this central issue, this lack of core values in our public education system, nothing can be fixed in this country for any length of time. I believe that now more than i ever have.

Aside from education, you've got another huge factor in the state of our national economy: unemployment, underemployment, smallest work force in decades, high uncertainty, high taxes, excessive regulation, the slim availability of good jobs, political corruption, our declining perception in the world, inflation- oil prices, food prices, ALL prices going up! It's a big, messy picture. You have to consider the economy because the harder it is to get a good job or buy groceries, the more prevalent poverty and crime become. That's just the way it is. When you get past all of the gritty details, there are two problems at the center of poverty and crime in America: 1. The federal government is too involved while state and local governments/private entities are hampered, and 2. Too many federal, state, local and private resources are being funneled into staving off symptoms rather than solving root problems. That combination is perpetuating poverty, prolonging hunger, and not helping anyone.

Here's the first step to a lasting solution solution:

Take the resources we spend at the federal level on poverty, crime and other similar issues, and invest in private entities. I'm talking churches, charities, elk lodges, rotary clubs, men's clubs, other nonprofit organizations, boy scouts and girl scouts, private companies, etc. I could go on for days listing all of the private entities that could do a hell of a lot more good for far less money than the government! The point is there are millions of people out there every day making far bigger gains on these problems than the federal government. Let's invest in them and let them do what they do far better than the federal government ever could. If not directly, then through tax credits, advertising, PSA's, vouchers and other methods of helping people to give their money to non-government entities that can truly solve problems. If we do that poverty will plummet, hunger will plummet, crime will plummet, and the need for a very large chunk of the federal budget will also plummet. Then, we can start giving more money back to taxpayers (fair tax anyone?), creating a cycle that will funnel more funds to entities that actually do lasting good in this world. It's not the final draft, but it's a damn good starting point. It will improve efficiency, lower costs, and best of all it gives people the ability to CHOOSE where their hard earned money goes. We can't trust politicians and bureaucrats to have anyone's best interests in mind but their own, so it makes perfect sense to give Americans the ability to ascertain for themselves who is really succeeding in eradicating poverty and crime, and allow them to choose to send their money that direction. Even if you took some of the money we spend on programs like welfare and food stamps, and donated a certain amount per person, on their behalf, to the entity of their choosing (private sector charity or nonprofit organization), it would do wonders for our success in combating crime and poverty. There are a number of solutions here folks, if you're willing to see them. Of course, if you're concern for those coming over the border is not truly rooted in the well being of those people, you'd have every reason to ridicule and dismiss these ideas, wouldn't you? But I digress...

God Bless

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Hobby Lobby: Free Stuff VS. "The Free Exercise Thereof"

From the hard right to the extreme left, everyone is tossing around their opinion about the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby (spoiler alert: I'm about to do so as well...). Liberals' heads are exploding left and lefter. But in reality, no Democrat is actually upset about the ruling. They're feigning outrage, but inside they're actually giddy. That's because they think they've got a new talking point that's going to flip the election polls in their favor. They think they've got a "war on women" reboot coming, and they couldn't be more excited. Already they're going to battle. Throughout the left and in the media we're seeing "not my boss's business" and other "clever" one liners from people who have no idea what this ruling actually says or means. Before you buy into their garbage, before you get yourself pissed and ready to throw down, consider this:

1. Of the TWENTY different contraceptives Obamacare attempts to force upon employers, Hobby Lobby objected to FOUR. They have no problem paying for the others and have no plans to opt out of them
2. The court said only closely held companies, not large board-run corporations, can even be considered to have a legitimate claim of religious freedom as it pertains to the contraceptive mandate
3. We're talking about truly held, long standing religious beliefs, not garbage, BS "beliefs" that are clearly made up to game the system (no sane person believes that SCUTUS would rule in favor of someone claiming that taxes or jury duty are against their religion)

Most liberals don't care about these facts, and most don't understand ruling for 2 reasons: they don't know how to apply common sense to individual circumstances, and they believe all religion is 100% made up and arbitrary. They are assuming this ruling is an absolute. It is not, and the ruling itself states as much. Any case of an employer seeking an exemption from the contraceptive mandate will be considered individually, on its own merits. But the slippery slope argument is much easier to defend than the truth for liberals. The same folks also hold a form of disdain for religion, believing that anyone who still subscribes to a religion in 2014 is a Neanderthal and should not be allowed to have rights. They think we're all incapable of participating in society simply because we believe in a higher power (a power higher than government). Again, not so. The freedom of religion is one of our most deeply held and protected rights. That's why it was named first in the bill of rights. It's no more or less vital to American liberty than freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble or the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Whether you agree with someone's beliefs is irrelevant. Whether you feel someone is "worthy" of rights is irrelevant.  We are all guaranteed the rights outlined in the Constitution and they cannot be suspended without due process. That goes for business owners as much as it does for employees, or any private citizen for that matter. Whether it's a small minority or an overwhelming majority, you can no more force someone to abandon their religion than you can make someone adhere to one. That's a basic principle outlined in our Constitution, and it cannot be thrown out because people think they shouldn't have to pay to keep from getting pregnant. There are plenty of ways to not get pregnant for free that don't involve forcing your boss to pay.

Here's another point that isn't getting covered by the Obama-loving-sorry-excuse-for-a-media: just because you WANT free birth control of any kind at anytime, doesn’t mean it's a human right to have it. However, I'll leave that part open to debate. For now let's assume we all agree as a nation and pass legislation to make it so. It would still not hold true that your neighbors or your employer should have to pay for it. Look at it this way: I'm just a pro 2nd Amendment as any freedom loving American. I am deeply committed to the right to protect your family and your liberty, but I would never proclaim that I'm entitled to "free" guns at my neighbor's or my boss's expense. I would never demand that the government or my employer give me guns and ammo- which are a hell of a lot more expensive than the morning after pill! Just because it is my right to do something or express myself, it doesn't mean it must be free of charge. Journalists have to pay for schooling, and the tools of their trade, do they not? Freedom of the press doesn't mean "free stuff if you want to be a member of the press". The same would still hold true if contraceptives were declared a human right. Look, it's not that Hobby Lobby or conservatives are looking to take certain contraceptives out of your hands or off the market. They simply don't want to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs. That's the real debate, and anyone spouting anything else is dancing around what they can't defend.

Another argument I keep hearing is that "employers can now force their religious beliefs on employees". Funny thing is, they leave out the part about the employees that have been demanding that their bosses abandon their beliefs. The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Prohibiting an employer who truly subscribes to real, non-harmful religious beliefs from exercising those beliefs, and forcing them to pay for contraceptives that their beliefs dictate to be unGodly, is directly prohibiting that employer from freely exercising their religion. It's the definition of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's a clear violation of the first amendment. No one is harmed, injured or unduly burdened if an employer doesn't pay for their pills. Like I said, no one is blocking anyone's access to birth control. SCOTUS simply ruled that you can't make your employer pay for it.

As always, before you decide to chastise or vilify someone over this, consider the source of all the outcry, and go get the information from the horse's mouth by reading the ruling yourself. I know from my own common sense that this ruling is completely in line with the Constitution. But you don't have to take my word for it, and I don't want you to. You don't need me or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or anyone else to tell you what to be outraged about, and you certainly don't need us to tell you what others have allegedly said. You've got access to that, all at the click of a button. Go find out for yourself. There's no reason not to know the truth.

God Bless