Add First Lady Michelle Obama and various members of the Democratic Party to the chorus of politicos…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
A More ‘Proportional’ Response than Impeachment?

Add First Lady Michelle Obama and various members of the Democratic Party to the chorus of politicos discussing the possibility of impeaching President Barack Obama.

The First Lady warned a group of donors that, “If we lose these midterm elections, it’s going to be a whole lot harder to finish what we started because we’ll just see more of the same out in Washington – more obstructions, more lawsuits, and talk about impeachment.”

A series of fundraising email blasts was then sent on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee begging immediate donations to thwart a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate. “ALL GIFTS TODAY ARE TRIPLE-MATCHED!” blared the emails.

Despite all this, impeachment is still seen in most quarters as far-fetched. Simple math says…[more]

July 28, 2014 • 08:11 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
New Polls Suggest Assault on Religious Freedom a Political Loser Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, March 15 2012
Two new polls suggest surprising popular opposition to Obama’s proposed mandate, including among women.

New opinion polls and government deficit projections create unexpected new difficulties for ObamaCare and its assault against religious liberty, as well as Obama’s reelection effort generally. 

In fact, the issue has turned so quickly against Obama that he pivoted from contriving it as a political bludgeon to despairing that others might use it as a political bludgeon against him. 

The issue, of course, is the attempted new ObamaCare contraceptive mandate for religious employers.  Desperate for an election year wedge issue to counteract failed economic policies, rising gasoline prices, trillion-dollar deficits and flagging popularity, the Obama Administration drafted a new federal regulation earlier this year that would suddenly require religious institutions to provide “free” abortives and contraceptives even if doing so violates their fundamental theological principles.   Such a requirement contravenes the First Amendment’s explicit free exercise clause, which states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

As we emphasized last month, this is not a debate about contraceptives themselves, and it’s dishonest to claim otherwise. 

After all, contraceptives were placed beyond prohibition nearly half a century ago by the United States Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).  So this is not about some new effort to restrict abortives or contraceptives currently available.  Rather, it’s an issue of the federal government suddenly trying to force religious institutions to violate their theological principles by either (a) providing abortives and contraceptives against their conscience, or (b) abandoning the charitable causes in which their theology requires that they engage. 

Attempting to force that choice violates the explicit terms of the First Amendment.  

Now, two new polls suggest surprising popular opposition to Obama’s proposed mandate, including among women. 

According to the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, “when asked whether the government should mandate that Roman Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges offer birth control paid for by the institutions’ insurance companies – as required by the rule – Americans were opposed by 45% to 38%.”  When asked more specifically whether the government should require religious institutions to provide contraceptives such as the “morning-after pill,” opposition increased to 49% to 34% overall.  In what must have jolted White House officials, women were opposed by a substantial 46% to 35% margin. 

Similarly, a New York Times/CBS News poll this week produced the same result.  By a 53% to 38% margin, women respondents said that “religiously affiliated employers should be able to opt out of the birth-control rule that requires employers, including religious institutions, to offer contraceptive drugs free of charge.”  Opposition among respondents overall was even higher.   

Startled that this issue appears to be backfiring on him, Obama changed course and complained about “using religion as a bludgeon in politics.”  As reported by The Hill

“Obama said it’s a problem when religion is used ‘to divide, instead of bring the country together’ in an interview that aired Monday on Iowa TV.  ‘When we start using religion as a bludgeon in politics, we start questioning other people’s faith, we start using religion to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we’ve got a problem,’ Obama told Des Moines’s local NBC affiliate, WHO TV.”

So there you have it.  After commencing a divisive assault against religious liberty, Obama now protests the consequences of his decision. 

But that wasn’t the end of the bad news for the Obama Administration. 

When selling his healthcare proposal before a nationwide audience in September 2009, Obama promised, “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.”  He also said, “The plan will not add to our deficit.” 

This week, however, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that ObamaCare will cost $1.762 trillion over the next 10 years.  By now, Americans are accustomed to broken promises from Obama, but this instance provided particular symmetry because ObamaCare will cost almost exactly twice as much as he guaranteed. 

Accordingly, the centerpiece of Obama’s presidency continues to prove less popular and less fiscally sustainable as time progresses. 

The way things are going, rising gas prices may become a welcome diversion to him. 

Question of the Week   
Mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the U.S. to prevent the spread of which one of the following communicable diseases?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The White House is reportedly weighing two options for executive action similar in kind to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was implemented — also by executive fiat, via memorandum — in 2012. One option would grant temporary legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens, authorizing them to remain in the country and to work here. The second option…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, National Review Online
— The Editors, National Review Online
 
Liberty Poll   

Is significant, proven plagiarism sufficient to disqualify, in the minds of voters, any candidate for public office?