Our intellectual betters at the New York Times thoughtfully advise us it is now inconceivable that any rational person could oppose President Obama’s brilliant “compromise” regarding religiously affiliated employers and government mandated birth control coverage.
‘Puter learned the following facts from reading the New York Times‘ editorial:
- All birth control coverage is free.
- Money is not fungible.
- Catholic hospitals, Jewish charities and Muslim outreach programs are not religious employers.
- Neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution has ever exempted “religiously affiliated institutions … from a neutral law of general applicability.”
- Compromise is defined as the ability to require an unwilling independent actor to adopt President Obama’s preferred policy position or face civil and criminal penalties.
- Insurance companies operate are unaffected by economic truths.
- By preventing children or destroying children, contraception saves money.
‘Puter may be a simple man, but he knows the following to be true.
- There is no such thing as “free.” You personally may not bear a cost, but someone, somewhere is. When government calls something “free,” and you accept it, you join government in taking another’s property against that person’s will.
- Money is fungible. If ‘Puter gives Czar $10.00 to pay for alcohol Czar already planned to buy, Czar now has $10.00 to spend on Hello Kitty figurines. ‘Puter’s $10.00 gift freed up Czar’s $10.00. It’s as if Czar had simply spent ‘Puter’s $10.00 on Hello Kitty accessories rather than on booze.
- Religiously affiliated not for profits are religious entities, part of the religion’s outward manifestation of its beliefs. A Catholic hospital is the manifestation of Catholicism’s (and Christianity’s, generally) belief that Jesus, God become man, requires his followers to treat the sick and dying. Religiously affiliated not for profits are not, as Obama wants you to believe, like a glove on a hand. Destroy the glove, and the hand is just fine. Rather, these institutions are a hand’s digits. Lop off a thumb, and the hand itself is compromised.
- The New York Times lies to us through its omission. Sure, the Supreme Court has held that First Amendment doesn’t protect religious institutions from facially neutral laws. But Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ordered exactly that, applying it to the federal government, and the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) upheld Congress’ authority to do so.
- Compromise means meeting in the middle. Obama’s proposal is little more than an order to do it his way, or else. The White House has better hidden the truth: religious employers will still pay for medications and treatments inimical to their long standing and deeply held religious beliefs.
- Insurance companies cannot provide a benefit for free. The money must come from somewhere. That is, to pay for Sandra Fluke’s worry free sex, the insurance company will use some of ‘Puter’s premium to purchase her a crate of morning after pills. In essence, insurance companies will overcharge everyone to provide “free” birth control.
- ‘Puter’s not certain, but he believes the New York Times has just asked him to prove the counterfactual. That is, how much money does a child that is never born use, should we assume him to have been born (which he wasn’t)? The answer is NONE. Not one red cent. You can’t count the continued non-existence of something that never was (but might have been) as a cost savings.
We can learn much about our liberal friends by watching what they do, rather than listening to what they say. Based on recent behavior, ‘Puter’s concluded there is one, and only one guiding principle in modern liberal thought: the ends justify the means, where “ends” is whatever favored liberal position they’re trying to ram down our throats.
Liberals on gay marriage: “You can’t subject the (unwritten and not yet discovered emanating from the penumbras) Constitutional rights of gays to marry to majority vote!”
Liberals on gun rights: “A majority of Americans favor banning assault weapons, so you crazy gun nuts in the minority, give up your Constitutionally guaranteed rights!”
Liberals to House and Senate Republicans on gun control legislation: “We can’t pass this without you, so what are you willing to live with? Only expanded and improved background checks? OK, we can do that.”
Liberals to House and Senate Republicans on ObamaCare enactment: “We don’t give a darn what you guys think because we don’t need a single vote from you. We’re going to cram this up your rear ends sideways, so sit down, shut up and enjoy the ride, bitches!”
Any readers sensing a pattern here? Liberals will say and do anything, including but not limited to lie, cheat and steal, to get their way. They don’t give a damn about the rule of law or minority rights or the Constitution unless it advances their agenda. Liberals will even, as shown above, take illogical and contradictory positions on the same topic (Constitutional rights, compromise, as shown above) when doing so advances their agenda.
The question is, as Sean Connery’s Malone noted in The Untouchables, what are you prepared to do? “If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.”
And that’s reality, no matter how much you wish it weren’t.