Sebelius: Page Missing From Parting Speech

This is not a joke. This really happened.

Sebelius’ Parting Words: ‘And Unfortunately, a Page Is Missing’ http://t.co/abnofnBnnT #tcot #obamacare #SebeliusMissingPage

— Curtis Kalin (@CurtisKalin) April 11, 2014

From CNSNews:

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius officially announced her resignation Friday, but just like the glitches that plagued the federal website for Obamacare – healthcare.gov – which she was responsible for, Sebelius experienced a glitch of her own when the last page of her speech went missing.

“So the personal reward for me at the end of the day are the folks who approach me, the strangers who approach me at a meeting or pass me a note on a plane or hand me a phone with someone on the other end saying thank you. Their stories are so heartening about finally feeling secure and knowing they can take care of themselves and their families. Unfortunately, a page is missing,” she said after a long pause.

So fitting.

TROLOLOLOLOL RT @Matthops82: Here's one of the pages from Sebelius' farewell speech. pic.twitter.com/6DWkP16vyV

— Jason Pye (@jaseliberty) April 11, 2014

Sebelius Resigns

Kathleen Sebelius has resigned.

From the New York Times:

Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, is resigning, ending a stormy five-year tenure marred by the disastrous rollout of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Obama accepted Ms. Sebelius’s resignation this week, and on Friday morning he will nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to replace her, officials said.

The departure comes as the Obama administration tries to move beyond its early stumbles in carrying out the law, persuade a still-skeptical public of its lasting benefits, and help Democratic incumbents, who face blistering attack ads after supporting the legislation, survive the midterm elections this fall.

Officials said Ms. Sebelius, 65, made the decision to resign and was not forced out. But the frustration at the White House over her performance had become increasingly clear, as administration aides worried that the crippling problems at HealthCare.gov, the website set up to enroll Americans in insurance exchanges, would result in lasting damage to the president’s legacy.

I don't care about Obama's legacy.

Do you think most Americans are concerned about the guy's legacy?

That's crazy.

The fact is Obama should have fired her months ago, even years ago.

Obama's legacy is already set. The resignation of Sebelius means nothing at this point.
_______________

This is funny:

Obama to announce at 5pm tomorrow that he's extending the deadline for Sebelius to leave.

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) April 10, 2014

This, too:

Well it's a good thing that Sebelius resigned NOW, before she could do any real damage. #SarcasmoModeOn

— Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78) April 10, 2014

And this:

Sebelius attempted to submit resignation a half dozen times over the last several days. Does that count as 6 resignations at HHS?

— RightWisconsin (@RightWisconsin) April 10, 2014

ObamaCare: The Lies and The Truth

Kathleen Sebelius: Miami ObamaCare Event (Video)

ObamaCare baby steps?

Obama and the Democrats are responsible for a LAW that rips out the health care system rug from under the feet of a country of 314 million people.

Baby steps to fix the mess are thorougly inadequate and utterly unacceptable.

Video of Kathleen Sebelius at an ObamaCare event in Miami:



Oh, my God!

I don't know how Sebelius can trot out there and keep a straight face as the ObamaCare website crashes again and again. She displays a creepy, robot-like attitude.

I wonder what she says in private about ObamaCare. What is her demeanor when the cameras aren't on her? Does she acknowledge the disaster, or, like her boss Obama, does she just hang out in the bathroom and sing?

Kathleen Sebelius in Milwaukee Friday

Kathleen "Whatever" Sebelius is in Milwaukee today.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will visit Progressive Community Health Centers' main clinic at 3522 W. Lisbon Ave. on Friday to promote the Affordable Care Act and encourage people to sign up for coverage on the insurance marketplace.

Sebelius's visit will come after a groundbreaking ceremony for a 42,000-square-foot clinic that will replace the health center's 8,500-square-foot facility. The new clinic, projected to cost more than $10 million, is being funded partially by a $5 million grant through the Affordable Care Act.

From FOX6 News:

Sebelius will help people to enroll via Healthcare.gov and will show workers tools that can help with enrollment.

From FOX 11:

Her visit comes the same week the federal government announced disappointing enrollment numbers in the month since the problem-plagued website was launched. Even though 700,000 Wisconsin residents were expected to shop for coverage through the exchange, only 877 managed to get all the way through and select a plan as of Nov. 2.

Why is the Obama White House staging this Sebelius appearance in Milwaukee?

This stunt will accomplish nothing but waste taxpayer dollars and loads of jet fuel.

It's a complete and utter waste.

Are the Democrats afraid they're losing Wisconsin because of the ObamaCare disaster?

They should be concerned, but Sebelius showing up here won't do any good. How could it possibly make a difference? Why bother?

WHATEVER.

It will be interesting to see which Wisconsin Democrats up for election in 2014 are at the event.

You'd expect gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke to attend. She should want to get cozy with an Obama cabinet member, right?

Does Burke support ObamaCare?

She must, but she doesn't seem to want to declare her allegiance to the horrific, oppressive, disruptive LAW that Obama is rewriting at will.

Bottom line: Sebelius should not be in Milwaukee to promote the mess that is ObamaCare.
_________________

UPDATE:

Mayor Tom Barrett wasn't able to make Sebelius' event in Milwaukee.

— MacIver News Service (@NewsMacIver) November 15, 2013

Sebelius says "The website has worked all along"

— MacIver News Service (@NewsMacIver) November 15, 2013

Obama, White House Not Internet Savvy

Whoops! The White House's website still says if you like your plan you can keep it: http://t.co/LvvPRcZaT7 pic.twitter.com/IMasvdSRTl
— Slate (@Slate) November 8, 2013

Good Lord!

This White House, this cool, Internet savvy president, and his administration are utter buffoons.

For God's sake, why is this STILL on the White House website?

If the White House can't or won't solve this extremely simple problem, are we supposed to trust them to manage the health care of a country of over 3 billion people?

Obama admitted Americans are losing their health care plans. He's apologizing for their nightmare, albeit in a very half-assed way, not taking responsibility, still acting as if his hands are clean.

Perhaps Team Obama decided to leave the lies on the WH site to continue the deceit, and keep those few remaining true believers happy.

To quote the "brilliant" Kathleen Sebelius, WHATEVER!

Bottom line: Obama is digging himself into a deeper hole. All his alleged coolness won't be enough to hoist him out of it. The cool is gone. The Obama myth is exposed to the masses.

Obama is a failure.

It's over.

Sebelius: 'Websites For Dummies'

From The Blaze:

During an education and outreach session in Memphis on Friday, Republican Tennessee State Sen. Brian Kelsey gave Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius a book that he thought she might need: “Web Sites for Dummies.”

That’s why we called it a “gift” in sarcastic quotes. The book is clearly meant to mock the Obama administration over the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare website.

The Daily News in Memphis was able to capture the moment in a photograph. As you can see, Sebelius doesn’t look very amused:

TN Sen @BrianKelsey gave Kathleen Sebelius "Websites for Dummies" during #Memphis #healthcare event #news pic.twitter.com/LxUwUA9Yxx
— The Daily News (@memphisdaily) November 1, 2013

I agree. Sebelius is not amused with the "gift."

"Whatever."

Sebelius: ObamaCare 'Website Has Never Crashed'

Renee Ellmers and Sebelius: Maternity Coverage For Men

This is priceless.

FREAKING AWESOME: Rep. Renee Ellmers SCHOOLS Sebelius on maternity care for men... http://t.co/yZeWlPjUSe

— The Right Scoop (@TheRightScoop) October 30, 2013

From CNSNews:

During a House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on the Obamacare website, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “I don’t think so” when asked “has a man ever delivered a baby?”

"I don't think so"?

Here's video of the exchange between Sebelius and Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.):

RENEE ELLMERS: Now I, you know, as far as the essential health benefits, correct me if I'm wrong, do men not have to buy maternity coverage?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Policies will cover maternity coverage for the young and healthy...

ELLMERS: Including men.

SEBELIUS: Under 30-year-olds will have a choice also of a catastrophic plan which has no maternity coverage.

ELLMERS: The catastrophic, but the men are required to purchase maternity...

SEBELIUS: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not, and one of the benefits will be maternity coverage, mental health coverage, domestic violence...

ELLMERS: And that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high, because we're forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

SEBELIUS: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families, yes.

ELLMERS: Single male, age 32, does not need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

SEBELIUS: I don't think so.

Leno: ObamaCare, Obama Jokes, October 29, 2013

JAY LENO: German Chancellor Angela Merkel furious the NSA tapped her private cell phone. And yesterday, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that the White House did not use its surveillance of foreign governments for any economic purposes or any economic gain. Maybe it should have. We would have learned something about running an economy possibly. We wouldn't be in this mess. Why didn't we do that?

A lot of things are going on this country right now. This is really a time for self-examination for all Americans. We have to learn to examine ourselves. Do you know why? Because it doesn't look like we're going to get any decent health care. If you don't examine yourself, you're just screwed.

...

Despite the fact that for years President Obama has been saying that no one would lose their health care plan, now the White House has admitted, in fact, many, many people will lose their plan. But there is a way to keep the great coverage you have. Just become a member of Congress, then the taxpayers pay for the whole thing. Fantastic.

It's being reported that the president has known for three years that people would lose their coverage. The press is now saying the president lied. But today, the White House said that's not true, he did not lie. And they released this tape from three years ago to prove it. Here's what he said three years ago:

(Video clip of Obama)



OBAMA: If you like your doctor, you (different voice dubbed over) 'CANNOT' keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you (different voice dubbed over) 'CANNOT' keep your plan.

There was some good news today for embattled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Obamacare will cover all her injuries after the White House throws her under the bus. So, she is fully covered.

This is not looking good. This isRemember the old days when Obama's worst embarrassment was Joe Biden? Remember those days? What happened?

Have you tried to get on the webcare site? It is slow.

It is so slow by the time you sign up for ObamaCare you're eligible for Medicare. That's how slow.

It is slower than a ticket scalper at a Jacksonville Jaguars game. That's how slow it is.

It is working slower than the band's Rogaine. That's how slow it is.

It is slower than a Barneys employee waiting on an African American customer. That's how slow it is.

___________________

Here's video:

SNL: Kathleen Sebelius (Video)

UPDATE, November 1, 2013: 'SNL' Obamacare website parody not far from truth

UPDATE, October 31, 2013: Obamacare enrollments got off to very slow start, documents show
___________________

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS (Kate McKinnon): I'm Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health under President Obama. Now, a lot of folks have been talking about our new health care enrollment website - how it's been crashing and freezing and shutting down and stalling and not working and breaking and sucking.

Well, tonight, I have a number of friendly tips to help you deal with those technical problems. For example, have you tried restarting your computer? Sometimes, it helps to turn the computer off and then turn it back on. We don't know why, it just does.

If our website still isn't loading properly, we're probably just overloaded with traffic. Millions of Americans are visiting healthcare.gov, which is great news. Unfortunately, the site was only designed to handle six users at a time.

Perez Hilton and Dan Savage

Kudos to Perez Hilton for having the decency and the courage to condemn Dan Savage's foul-mouthed, anti-Bible rant at a journalism conference attended by high school students. Some kids walked out when Savage insulted their faith.

Hilton writes:

Savage later called the walk-out "pansy-a**ed" which, from someone who helms an anti-bullying campaign, is obviously a very negative thing to say.

...Religion is certainly a tricky mistress!

Can't we just be good and kind to each other? Isn't faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?

Although Hilton's condemnation of Savage's bullying tactics is quite mild, he should be commended for at least admitting Savage's remarks were inconsistent with someone leading an anti-bullying campaign.

Ben Shapiro, Breitbart's Big Hollywood, writes:

Hilton has long been an advocate of anti-bullying, and it is heroic of him to stand apart from the rest of the media, which has buried Savage’s bully tactics or brushed them off as unimportant. Savage, as Hilton points out, has lost his credibility as an anti-bullying advocate with such actions. And yes, Hilton has cut a video on behalf of the It Gets Better Project.

It wasn’t any of the big time celebrities who have endorsed and supported Savage’s It Gets Better Project who stood up against him. It wasn’t folks like Jane Lynch or Neil Patrick Harris or Josh Duhamel or James Marsden or Janet Jackson or Jennifer Love Hewitt or any of the dozens of other stars who could have done so.

It wasn’t the folks in the mainstream media, who have completely ignored the story, or justified Savage’s behavior.

It wasn’t the elected leaders who have used government resources to direct traffic to Savage’s program who stood up to Savage’s bullying here. It wasn’t President Obama or Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack or the Department of Justice or the White House Staff or Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

It's pretty pathetic that Hollywood celebrities and government officials won't comment on Savage's hateful remarks. It's awful that Obama says nothing.

Why isn't Obama thinking about his daughters, Sasha and Malia, when it comes to Savage's rant?

Does he only think about them when Sandra Fluke is demanding a Catholic institution pay for her contraception?

Whatever.

It's unfortunate that doing the right thing takes a backseat to the political goals of Obama and his followers.

It shouldn't be that hard to admit Savage is a bully, with a long history of intolerance and cruelty. He's a terrible role model.

Don't bully?

Absolutely. Respect others.

In other words, don't be like Dan Savage.

Timothy Dolan: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Cardinal Timothy Dolan is not sitting quietly by as Obama and the Democrats tamper with the First Amendment.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan's update on the Obama administration's assault on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue: religious freedom. Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?

I wanted to let you, the great people of the archdiocese, know how we’re doing in this fight. Thank you for your extraordinary unity, support, and encouragement. Throughout all the archdiocese, our people – both as patriotic citizens and committed Catholics — have been very effective in letting government know that we are not at peace at all with this attempt to curtail the freedom of religion and sanctity of conviction we cherish as both Catholics and Americans.

This has not been a fight of our choosing. We’d rather not be in it. We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church. And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government. The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad. We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.

Nor is this a “Catholic” fight alone. As a nurse from Harrison emailed me, “Cardinal, I’m not so much mad about all this as a Catholic, but as an American.” It was a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee, who observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.”

And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.

When the President announced on January 20th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest. The worry that we bishops had expressed — that such government control was contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars and leaders of every creed. Even newspaper editorials supported us!

On February 10th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to pay the bill, not the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable outreach. He considered this “concession” adequate.

Did this help? We bishops wondered if it would, and announced at first that, while withholding final judgment, we would certainly give it close scrutiny.

Well, we have — and we’re still as worried as ever. For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry through the suffocating mandates.

Two, since a big part of our ministries are “self-insured,” how is this going to help us? We’ll still have to pay! And what about individual believers being coerced to pay?

Three, there was still no resolution about the handcuffs placed upon renowned Catholic charitable agencies, both national and international, and their exclusion from contracts just because they will not refer victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the hungry of the world, for abortions, sterilization, or contraception.

So, we have given it careful study. Our conclusion: we’re still very worried. There seem far more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity.

Now what to do?

Well, for one, we’ll keep up advocacy and education on the issue. We continue to tap into your concern as citizens and count on your support. Regrettably, the unity of the Catholic community has been tempered a bit by those who think the President has listened to us and now we can quit worrying. You’re sure free to take their advice. But I hope you’ll listen to your pastors who are still very concerned.

Two, we’ll continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that require us to violate our moral convictions — or at least a wider latitude to the exemptions so that churches can be free — and of the rigidly narrow definition of church, minister, and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children, and healing the sick who are not Catholic.

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Sorry to go on at such length. You can see how passionately I feel about this. But, from what I sense, you do too. You all have been such an inspiration, and I owe it to you to keep you posted. We need you more than ever! We can’t give up hoping, praying, trying, and working hard.

As Cardinal Dolan says, this article by Cardinal Francis George really is excellent.

In the public discussion thus far, efforts have been made to isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful by focusing attention exclusively on “reproductive” issues. But the acrimony could as easily focus next year or the year after on assisted suicide or any other moral issue that can be used to distract attention from the attack on religious liberty. Many will recognize in these moves a tactic now familiar in our public life: those who cannot be co-opted are isolated and then destroyed. The arguments used are both practical and theoretical.

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

Theoretically, it is argued that there are Catholic voices that disagree with the teaching of the church and therefore with the bishops. There have always been those whose personal faith is not adequate to the faith of the church. Perhaps this is the time for everyone to re-read the Acts of the Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles; they collectively receive the authority to teach and govern that Christ bestowed upon the apostles. Bishops don’t claim to speak for every baptized Catholic. Bishops speak, rather, for the Catholic and apostolic faith. Those who hold that faith gather with them; others go their own way. They are and should be free to do so, but they deceive themselves and others in calling their organizations Catholic.

Since 1915, the Catholic bishops of the United States have taught that basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society. Two years ago, we asked that whatever instruments were crafted to care for all, the Hyde and Weldon and Church amendments restricting funding for abortion and respecting institutional conscience continue to be incorporated into law. They were excluded. As well, the present health care reform act doesn’t cover entire sections of the U.S. population. It is not universal.

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

...The observance of Lent reminds us that, in the end, we all stand before Christ and give an accounting of our lives. From that perspective, I ask lay Catholics and others of good will to step back and understand what is happening to our country as the church is despoiled of her institutions and as freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past. The suffering being imposed on the church and on society now is not a voluntary penance. We should both work and pray to be delivered from it.

The issue is not contraception or a "war on women" or Rush Limbaugh's choice of words.

The issue is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

I'm not giving that up.

GOP Valentine's Day Cards 2012

Once again, the GOP is offering a selection of Valentines for you to send to that special someone.

See some of the 2011 cards here.

See some of the 2010 cards here.

The GOP offers 18 cards. One is sure to please your Valentine.

Some options:


Barack Obama (You got that right, Obama!)



Joe Biden (I wonder if Joe has been in a Delaware Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven recently.)



Janet Napolitano (I'm thoroughly creeped out.)



Kathleen Sebelius (First Amendment-challenged.)



Anthony Weiner (I can say with certitude your crotch shots were pathetic.)



Barack Obama (Don't tax me, Bro! Have a heart!)

Planned Parenthood Attacks Catholic Church

This ad from Planned Parenthood supports Obama and his administration's attack on religious freedom.



Obama's assault on the Constitution should trouble every single American.

Look at the larger issue. This is about our fundamental freedoms being stripped away.

Want a clear reason to rise up against Obama?

This is it.

Fellow Catholics, if this doesn't bother you, I suggest you do some self-reflection. Ignoring this, compartmentalizing it, is not an option.
_______________

Read "First, they came for the Catholics," by Michelle Malkin.

Obama's Free Contraception Mandate

King Barack is forcing his will on Catholic and other religious organizations.

Separation of church and state? What? Huh?

Health plans ordered to cover birth control without co-pays

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

Congressional Republicans slammed the decision as an assault on religious freedom.

"This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees," said the Republican Policy Committee. "Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base."

Private organizations should not be forced to violate their beliefs.

Sebelius' statement that the "proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services" is positively idiotic.

There's no balance at all. A one-year exemption is ridiculous. It doesn't address the moral issues involved.

From ABC News:

The Obama administration today said it would move forward with a new mandate requiring most U.S. employers – including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools – to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge.

The guidelines, first proposed in August and set to take effect in August 2012, have been hailed by the abortion-rights community and many Obama re-election supporters.

But the Catholic Church and other religious groups, which consider some forms of contraception as the termination of life, had waged an intensive lobbying campaign for a clear exemption of affiliated institutions from the new rules.

The Department of Health and Human Services today said, despite their concerns, it will hold the line on the requirement, but extended the deadline for compliance until 2013.

“We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns,” Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

"Work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns"?

Give me a break! Really? What a load!

What is Sebelius going to do that will actually address their concerns, such as not being forced to provide something that violates their basic faith tenets?

It's impossible. One year means nothing.

King Barack rules without checks and balances.

This is tyranny. Obama is a tyrant.

Obama and Morning-After Pill

The most radically pro-abortion American president ever, Obama, had to know that he would tick off his pro-abortion base.

He doesn't care. He knows the pro-abortion crowd will vote for him. He has to worry about all American voters. Obama needs to win over Middle America.

So, the "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby" president supports Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' sudden reversal, deciding to block the Plan B morning-after pill from being available on drugstore shelves.

From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his health secretary's decision to stop the Plan B morning-after pill from moving onto drugstore shelves next to the condoms.

"As the father of two daughters," he said, "I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine." The president spoke the morning after his administration stunned major doctors' groups and women's health advocates with the decision.

Plan B is a pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken soon enough after unprotected sex. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled scientists at the Food and Drug Administration who were preparing to let Plan B sell without a prescription to people of any age. Sebelius decided that young girls shouldn't be able to buy the pill on their own, saying she was worried about whether 11-year-olds would know how to use it properly.

Obama said Sebelius made that decision on her own. But he said he thought she was worried about young girls experiencing harmful side effects, saying "I think most parents would probably feel the same way.

For now, Plan B will stay behind pharmacy counters, available without a prescription only to those 17 and older who can prove their age.

Sebelius' decision is "medically inexplicable," said Dr. Robert Block of the American Academy of Pediatrics, one of a number of major medical groups that contends over-the-counter access to emergency contraception would lower the nation's high number of unplanned pregnancies.

Pediatricians say the morning-after pill is safe—containing a high dose of the same female hormone that's in regular birth control pills—especially compared to some existing over-the-counter medicines.

"I don't think 11-year-olds go into Rite Aid and buy anything," much less a single pill that costs about $50, added fellow AAP member Dr. Cora Breuner, a professor of pediatric and adolescent medicine at the University of Washington.

Instead, putting the morning-after pill next to the condoms and spermicides would increase access for those of more sexually active ages "who have made a serious error in having unprotected sex and should be able to respond to that kind of lack of judgment in a way that is timely as opposed to having to suffer permanent consequences," she said.

Obama talks about common sense, something the pro-abortion crowd lacks.

He knows he will suffer no election year consequences whatsoever because of his support for his administration's decision.

It makes sense for him to limit access to the morning-after pill.

Obama isn't kidding anyone by hiding behind Kathleen Sebelius' alleged authority. She's following his orders.

Obama is doing what he believes will help him politically.

That's what this decision is all about.

If he had solid approval numbers and if he weren't up for reelection and if Americans weren't in such dire straits economically, Obama would be praising the decision to let anyone grab the morning-after pill off a drugstore shelf like a Q-tip.

We know he doesn't want kids "punished with a baby."

The thing is he wants to be reelected more, looking out for #1.

ObamaCare and the CLASS Act

Well.

It's late on Friday, so the Obama administration puts out the announcement that a major aspect of ObamaCare won't work.

The Obama administration announced on Friday that it was scrapping a long-term care insurance program created by the new health care law because it just would not work. Premiums for the program, known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support (or Class) Act, would be so high that very few people would sign up, officials said.

Well.

This is big.

Obama and his team hope no one is paying attention.

WRONG.

Paul Ryan responds to this latest of Obama's broken promises:

Obama Administration Pulls the Plug on Their Failed Health-Care ‘Ponzi Scheme’

The President’s Health-Care Law’s House of Cards Begins to Crumble

October 14, 2011

WASHINGTON – Today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s decision to discontinue a key component of its health-care law:

“To hide the true cost of their health-care overhaul, the leaders of the Democratic party loaded it with gimmicks and double-counting. One of the most egregious of these gimmicks involved the CLASS Act, a new long-term care program that was scored as an offset against the ten-year, trillion-dollar cost of the Democrats new law. Independent health care experts warned that the CLASS Act program would turn into a classic ‘insurance death spiral.’ Not only would the short-term savings fail to materialize, but the long-term costs would prove catastrophically high. Even Democratic Senator Kent Conrad called the program ‘A Ponzi scheme Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.’

“Today, the Obama Administration finally surrendered to reality: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has informed Congressional leaders that she ‘does not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.' The smoke and mirrors that the Democrats employed to sell their health care overhaul are finally falling away, one broken promise at a time. When all of these gimmicks are stripped out, the new law would add hundreds of billions of dollars in red ink over the next decade, as health-care costs send the debt spiraling out of control. Now it is time for Congress to do the responsible thing: Repeal the disastrous new law and replace it with true, patient-centered reforms.”

Reality bites.

When Leftists have to face it, their plans fall apart.

Obama's presidency is an absolute mess.

Cigarette Warning Labels: Graphic

The U.S. government is demanding that graphic warning labels it has designed be placed on both the top half of the front and back of packs of cigarettes. In addition, the labels must occupy 20 percent of the space on advertising.

Here are some of the examples the FDA displayed last year:





View the final label designs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Cigarette makers must add large, graphic warning labels depicting diseased lungs, a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his neck and other images to packaging and advertising in the U.S. by October 2012, government officials said Tuesday.

The nine graphic images—accompanying warning labels with messages such as "Smoking can kill you" and "Cigarettes cause cancer"—are the biggest change to warning labels in more than 25 years. Such warnings were required by a 2009 law that gave the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products.

The supersize labels are the highest-profile part of an intensified war on tobacco by the federal government, which ranks it as the leading cause of preventable and premature death in the U.S., linked to an estimated 443,000 deaths a year. The adult smoking rate of 20.6% in 2009 has remained largely unchanged since 2004, and about 20% of high school students also smoke.

The new color labels must occupy the top half of the front and back of a cigarette pack, and 20% of an ad's space. Other images include a baby near a cloud of smoke, a dead body, and a man wearing a black t-shirt with "I Quit" written across the chest. All labels include the number of a national quit line. Current warning labels, which were put on cigarette packs in the 1980s, are contained in a small box with black and white text warning about the dangers of smoking.

...Reynolds American Inc., Lorillard Inc., Commonwealth Brands Inc. and other tobacco companies sued the FDA in 2009, arguing that the graphic-labeling rule and other marketing provisions in the new federal tobacco law violate their constitutional rights to free speech. Last year, a judge mostly ruled in the government's favor—including on the graphic-labeling rule—but the mixed verdict prompted appeals from both sides.

...How effective the labels are at discouraging smoking remains to be seen. More than 25% of smokers in 13 of 14 countries in a recent survey reported that large, graphic warning labels prompted them to think about quitting, according to results published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a 2001 survey sponsored by the Canadian Cancer Society, 44% of smokers said warning labels increased their motivation to quit. The Institute of Medicine, a U.S. federal advisory body, concluded in a 2007 report that graphic warnings would convey a better understanding of the health risks of smoking and would reduce U.S. consumption.

Who doesn't understand the health risks of smoking?

There is no lack of anti-smoking education. If one is too stupid to know the dangers, I don't know how that person is capable of learning to smoke.

I do think warning labels are appropriate on potentially dangerous products, but the government's new designs are a no-holds-barred assault on the tobacco industry.

Is this the beginning of more government intrusion in private industry? Will the FDA expand its power and design graphic warnings for other potentially harmful products, like FOOD?

Any food consumed in quantities that are extreme can cause serious health consequences.

Consuming too much clear, clean WATER can kill.

Virtually every product has risks. The need for graphic warnings are endless.

Should grills be required to have images similar to the 36 cigarette labels since one consumes carcinogens when eating grilled food?

Should makers of toothpicks be required to have a label that includes graphic pictures of the wooden spikes sticking out of people's eyes?

Should packages of candles for birthday cakes include graphic images of burn victims? HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Make a wish!

Should women's high heel shoes come in boxes with pictures of women with broken bones and deformed feet?

Should children's bikes be required to have stickers depicting dead children, killed in accidents?

Should entrances to playgrounds in parks have large graphic warning signs that show children injured while playing, some paralyzed, some dead?

Should EVERY bottle of wine and spirits have graphic pictures of diseased livers and dying people? Celebrate!

Should EVERY car have images of bloodied bodies on the dashboard and the bumpers?

If the government is to be consistent, yes. If the government's role is to determine the design of labels of private industries' products, then yes.

While I support warning labels and an informed public, I think it's wrong for the government to be in the business of controlling the design of product packages.

What's especially troubling about the cigarette campaign is that it singles out one industry, at least for now.

If the government is truly concerned about public health, then the government must be consistent.

Without question, it must demand that abortion clinics plaster images of dismembered fetuses and the mutilated, murdered bodies of nearly full-term babies on its doors and walls.
______________________

Read Dr. Regina M. Benjamin's take on the issue: New Graphic Warnings Labels: A Step In The Right Direction

As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reminded us, "President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help. These labels will encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future."

It's for the children.

Cigarette Package Warning Labels (Photos)

The Food and Drug Administration has designed 36 graphic warning labels to be placed on cigarette packages.

Here are some examples of the FDA's designs:






From the New York Times:

Federal drug regulators on Wednesday unveiled 36 proposed warning labels for cigarette packages, including one showing a toe tag on a corpse and another in which a mother blows smoke on her baby.

Designed to cover half the surface area of a pack or carton of cigarettes, and a fifth of any advertisements for them, the labels are intended to spur smokers to quit by providing graphic reminders of tobacco’s dangers. The labels are required under a law passed last year that gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate, but not ban, tobacco products for the first time.

Public health officials hope that the new labels will re-energize the nation’s antismoking efforts, which have stalled in recent years. About 20.6 percent of the nation’s adults, or 46.6 million people, and about 19.5 percent of high school students, or 3.4 million teenagers, are smokers.

...Among the most arresting of the proposed labels is one in which a man exhales smoke through a hole in his neck. Some smokers who suffer cancer of the larynx must breathe through a tracheotomy instead of their nose or mouth. But the proposed labels are not as gruesome as some mandated in Europe, in which ghastly photos of blackened teeth and decaying mouths give a Halloween aspect to cigarette packs.

“Today marks an important milestone in protecting our children and the health of the American public,” Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said Wednesday.

The United States was the first country to require tobacco products to bear health warnings, and all cigarette packages now sold in the country have modest ones like “Surgeon General’s Warning: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.”

But 39 other countries have gone well beyond such brief warnings and now require large, graphic depictions of smoking’s effects. With Wednesday’s announcement, the United States — whose first European settlements in the 17th century helped to create and feed a global tobacco addiction — edged a step closer to joining those nations’ efforts to reduce the centuries-old epidemic of tobacco-related deaths.

“This is the most important change in cigarette health warnings in the history of the United States,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Studies suggest that pictorial warnings are better at getting the attention of adolescents than ones that feature only text; make smokers more likely to skip the cigarette they had planned to smoke and more likely to quit; and make adolescents less likely to start smoking.

But health officials said there was some evidence that the most gruesome images, while memorable, are dismissed sooner by smokers.

I'm not a smoker. In my opinion, smoking is self-destructive. It's a waste of money. It's a death wish.

I've lost loved ones due to smoking. I'm in no way an advocate for the use of tobacco products.

But I do object to the government infringing on the rights of private industry and seizing control, in this case requiring that graphic warning images cover half the surface area of a pack or carton of cigarettes.

These warnings go far beyond informing consumers of the hazards of smoking cigarettes. The government is taking control of the product via its packaging.

I think the labels go too far.

Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and understands the risks. There is no lack of anti-smoking education. If one is too stupid to know the dangers, I don't know how that person is capable of learning to smoke.

I do think warning labels are appropriate on potentially dangerous products, but the government's new designs are a no-holds-barred assault on the tobacco industry.

Is this the beginning of more government intrusion in private industry? Will the FDA expand its power and design graphic warnings for other potentially harmful products, like FOOD?

Any food consumed in quantities that are extreme can cause serious health consequences.

Consuming too much clear, clean WATER can kill.

Virtually every product has risks. The need for graphic warnings are endless.

Should grills be required to have images similar to the 36 cigarette labels since one consumes carcinogens when eating grilled food?

Should makers of toothpicks be required to have a label that includes graphic pictures of the wooden spikes sticking out of people's eyes?

Should packages of candles for birthday cakes include graphic images of burn victims? HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Make a wish!

Should women's high heel shoes come in boxes with pictures of women with broken bones and deformed feet?

Should children's bikes be required to have stickers depicting dead children, killed in accidents?

Should entrances to playgrounds in parks have large graphic warning signs that show children injured while playing, some paralyzed, some dead?

Should EVERY bottle of wine and spirits have graphic pictures of diseased livers and dying people? Celebrate!

Should EVERY car have images of bloodied bodies on the dashboard and the bumpers?

If the government is to be consistent, yes. If the government's role is to determine the design of labels of private industries' products, then yes.

This new necessity for the government to design labels for EVERYTHING will be a massive undertaking.

A trip to the store will become a visit to a house of horrors.

While I support warning labels and an informed public, I think it's wrong for the government to be in the business of controlling the design of product packages.

What's especially troubling about the cigarette campaign is that it singles out one industry, at least for now.

If the government is truly concerned about public health, then the government must be consistent.

Without question, it must demand that abortion clinics plaster images of dismembered fetuses and the mutilated, murdered bodies of nearly full-term babies on its doors and walls.