SUNDAY RESPITE-We Bow Down-Twila Paris

THIS IS ABOUT THE POWER OBAMA THINKS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE.

In 2010, the Justice Department, at the behest of the Obama Administration, filed an action against the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church, claiming it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it fired a female employee for violating a "religious principle." (Imprimus, April 2013, Volume 42, Number 4)

The brief brought by the Administration argued that the religion clauses of the First Amendment don't protect the right of religious groups to select ministers.

The Justice Department also argued that employment discrimination laws trumped the First Amendment's religious freedom protections-even concerning the choice of ministers.

The school held that it was drawing on a legal doctrine known as "ministerial exception," which allows religious institution wide latitude in hiring and firing their religious leaders.

The Administration's lawyers argued that there should be no ministerial exceptions.

They essentially wanted to eliminate this exception, stating: "Government needs to have broad powers to address the problem of discrimination - in this case 'disability - as well as other injustices. Conceding too much to religious institutions limits those powers. Why should the theological doctrines of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, or of any other church, trump the legal doctrines of the United States when the important principle of non-discrimination is at stake?"

What this all means is that the Obama Administration thought the powers of the government should be far greater than the Constitution, convention and history had provided.

The case went to the Supreme Court which held, in a 9-0, ruling that the Administration was wrong.

Did you get that? The Administration wanted the power to decide matters of church polity, matters of church authority and matters of church employment rights. They also wanted to do away with a centuries old manifestation of First Amendment rights for religious organizations for "social" purposes as they saw them.

They thought they were right about their right to power.

They were wrong.

This "Constitutional scholar" [which President BO (the amateur president) is NOT], has been wrong far more than he has been right about Constitutional freedom in America.

He is not capable of understanding or of learning what America is really all about.

THE LIBERAL'S MIND IS SET

It's not always easy to follow the liberals line of thinking. It can get a bit confusing. Here are just a few examples/reasons.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, when you want, where you want as long as it is inoffensive, uses the name of the Lord in vain, is ugly and vulgar, and follows the liberal agenda.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can stand on the street corner, in a stadium or in another public or government controlled space and use the word "Jesus" or some related thought.

But it's still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can mention Jesus as much as you want, anywhere you want, so long as it is used to swear and/or curse.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can use the name, "Jesus" in a reverent, considerate, compassionate way.

Freedom of speech means you can talk about political things in a public forum, on the street corner, in the courthouse or at a stadium.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can talk about politics from the pulpit of a church.

But it is still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can study all sorts of things in universities, such as how to have sex, the artistic value of a painting showing Jesus being urinated on, the wonders of Socialism and Communism as opposed to the evil of Capitalism.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can freely support the concepts of Capitalism, Constitutional republics (the United States), nor can you denigrate Socialism or Communism for fear of failing the course.

But it's still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can desecrate the flag of the United States in any way you wish.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can proudly stand and revere the flag of the United States lest you be accused of nationalism and "unique-ism."

But it is still freedom.

Freedom of speech means you can yell and scream, call women female dogs, "HOs," and other bleepable names on Maury.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can refer to women as "buffaloes,"  sluts and the like if you are not a liberal. You cannot even complement them at work.

But it is still freedom.

Freedom of speech means what a liberal wants it to mean, when a liberal wants it to mean what he wants it to mean, where a liberal wants it to mean what he wants it to mean, how a liberal wants it to mean what he wants it to mean.

Conservatives are not allowed to ascribe traditional meanings to words.

But it is still Freedom.

Can you say, "Inconsistent?"

JUDGE JEANINE ASKS THE QUESTION.

SUNDAY RESPITE-Lean On Me-Robbie Hiner

CHUCKLES SCHUMER REVEALS THAT THE "AFFORDABLE" HEALTH CARE ACT WON'T BE

UPDATE: SO DID SEBELIUS:


"...people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday.

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.

The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. …

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

MUST PROGRESSIVES PROGRESS?