Tag Archives: first amendment

The First Amendment and Atheists

It seems that Obama isn’t the only one in desperate need of a refresher course on the Constitution. Those wacky folks over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) are at it again. Now they want to remove yet another war memorial because it happens to have a cross on it.

Atheist Tombstone

Ryan Somma (CC)


The monument isn’t unconstitutional, folks. Congress didn’t make a law about it, or if it did, it was merely a recognition of its existence. The existence of the cross does not carry any legal power, and does not say that the Federal Government is going to enforce any laws based on the Christian faith. It is a memorial, and I’d wager that the soldiers it memorializes are all Christian. If they aren’t, then maybe the members of the other faiths that were excluded from the memorial have a case for having their symbols added to it.

The Constitution protects the rights of citizens to observe the faith of their choosing. While Thomas Jefferson did say something about people worshiping or not worshiping any number of gods, the First Amendment only prevents the Federal Government from becoming a theocratic body, or making any law that abridges the observation of any faith. That’s why we call it “Freedom of Religion”, by the way. Now, here’s a newsflash for the folks over at FFRF: Atheism is not a religion, period. If one is atheist, one does not believe there are any deities, and therefore does not observe any religion either. So, if the folks over at FFRF are offended by monuments to deities that they supposedly don’t believe in anyway, perhaps they don’t need to running about filing lawsuits about their discomfort. They need to be letting their fingers do the walking, and find themselves some good psychiatrists to help them with their obvious mental problems!

–Crossposted on Goldwater Gal–

“Accommodation” and Self-Insurance




President Barack Hussein Obama, and his administration, particularly with regard to the Health and Human Services (HHS) announcement, tried to “accommodate” everyone by announcing that insurers had to provide contraception to employees. But he didn’t consider the self-insurance issue. Or perhaps he did, but considered it a non-issue that will go away when the one year grace period ends.

On February 9, 2012, while trying to “accommodate” people who can read the US Constitution, particularly the first amendment, Obama said, “But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company – not the hospital, not the charity – will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles. The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.” His objective was to take complaining religious organizations out of the equation, while ensuring employee access to important health benefits.

WOW! His statement really sounds good. But …

Does Obama really believe that insurance companies will not pass on the increased cost of contraception to hospitals and charities? Does he really believe that premiums can be separated into medical necessities and contraceptions, sterilizations, and abortifacients? Some employers would like to be able to purchase insurance from insurers that do not offer contraceptive coverage so that none of their money supports such coverage. Further, some nonprofit religious insurers have said they would object to a requirement that forced them to provide contraceptive coverage

And now the self-insurance issue rears its ugly head. Obama thought that he had found a way to ease objections to a requirement that ALL employers offer coverage for birth control to women free of charge. Obama tried to “accommodate” by saying his edict would make the insurers cover the costs, rather than the organizations themselves. But the issue just won’t go away. And now Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has spoken about insurance coverage. At her weekly press briefing, she said, “This is an issue about women’s health, and I believe that women’s health should be covered in all of the insurance plans that are there.”

Large employers, like the Catholic church, often choose to self-insure. Many large employers contract with an insurance company to administer the plan. In 2011, 82% of insured workers at companies of more than 200 employees had self-insured plans.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on February 17, 2012, that the revised rule on insurance coverage of birth control will apply to self-insured entities, as well as policies issued by insurance companies. So all of this uproar over insurers covering contraception may be moot.

But that’s just my opinion.

"Accommodation" and Self-Insurance




President Barack Hussein Obama, and his administration, particularly with regard to the Health and Human Services (HHS) announcement, tried to “accommodate” everyone by announcing that insurers had to provide contraception to employees. But he didn’t consider the self-insurance issue. Or perhaps he did, but considered it a non-issue that will go away when the one year grace period ends.

On February 9, 2012, while trying to “accommodate” people who can read the US Constitution, particularly the first amendment, Obama said, “But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company – not the hospital, not the charity – will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles. The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.” His objective was to take complaining religious organizations out of the equation, while ensuring employee access to important health benefits.

WOW! His statement really sounds good. But …

Does Obama really believe that insurance companies will not pass on the increased cost of contraception to hospitals and charities? Does he really believe that premiums can be separated into medical necessities and contraceptions, sterilizations, and abortifacients? Some employers would like to be able to purchase insurance from insurers that do not offer contraceptive coverage so that none of their money supports such coverage. Further, some nonprofit religious insurers have said they would object to a requirement that forced them to provide contraceptive coverage

And now the self-insurance issue rears its ugly head. Obama thought that he had found a way to ease objections to a requirement that ALL employers offer coverage for birth control to women free of charge. Obama tried to “accommodate” by saying his edict would make the insurers cover the costs, rather than the organizations themselves. But the issue just won’t go away. And now Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has spoken about insurance coverage. At her weekly press briefing, she said, “This is an issue about women’s health, and I believe that women’s health should be covered in all of the insurance plans that are there.”

Large employers, like the Catholic church, often choose to self-insure. Many large employers contract with an insurance company to administer the plan. In 2011, 82% of insured workers at companies of more than 200 employees had self-insured plans.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on February 17, 2012, that the revised rule on insurance coverage of birth control will apply to self-insured entities, as well as policies issued by insurance companies. So all of this uproar over insurers covering contraception may be moot.

But that’s just my opinion.

Atheist lawsuit demonstrates hypocrisy

According to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a militant atheist group from Madison, WI, atheists have a right never to be offended by anything religious… and the rest of us have a right to adjust our lives to ensure that we don’t harm their dainty sensibilities.  Sounds fair.

Here is the sequence of events that recently took place involving the FFRF:

  • Jessica Ahlquist, a 16 year old student and atheist in Rhode Island, sued her school district over a banner that she found overly religious and offensive.  FFRF supported her effort but wasn’t involved in the lawsuit.  Earlier this month, District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled in Ms. Ahlquist’s favor that the banner had to be removed.
  • The FFRF tried to send Ahlquist flowers to congratulate her on her victory, but three florists refused to take the order.  The atheist group is now planning to sue the florists.

These folks are adamant when it comes to their belief in this mythical idea of Freedom from Religion.  But when it comes to the florists, somehow they don’t believe in a Freedom from the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  Consistent!

This group is such a joke that they are basically a self-parody.  The people at FFRF are so singularly focused on their own perceived rights that they have absolutely no respect for the rights of others.

This organization doesn’t see the hypocrisy in backing someone who used  the government to ensure that atheists never have to be around anything that offends them, then turning right around and trying to use the government to force religious people to be around something that offends them.  The complete disregard that FFRF has for the rights and beliefs of others is stunning.

Here’s the funniest part: despite all the fanatical claims of discrimination, these florists weren’t even refusing to do business with FFRF because they were atheists. They refused the order because FFRF was adding a bunch of insane requests to the order:

The florists, though, disagree with [FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor’s] stance on the matter. Turnto10.com reports that Raymond Santilli of Flowers by Santilli, one of the companies the FFRF attempted to order from, explains that a foundation representative told him that the person delivering the flowers might need police protection. Additionally, he was apparently told that the person would potentially need identification to enter the home.

“We refused the order because we really don’t want to cross lines,” Santilli said. ”If I send flowers there, somebody may get upset with us and retaliate against us.”

Wow – FFRF told them that accepting the order would require police protection and they refused?  I’m shocked!!  But yeah, I’m sure it was the atheism that was the problem.

That should tell you all you need to know about the FFRF and what it stands for.  They don’t exist for the purpose of defending the rights of atheists.  They go around the country looking for any possible situation they can exploit to force their values on other people.

It’s long past time that we start recognizing groups like FFRF for what they are and challenging them at every opportunity.  We can no longer back down out of fear of a lawsuit or to avoid being politically incorrect.  If we don’t, the values of our entire society will be determined by a very tiny – yet radical – minority.

Why Newt Appeals to Americans

Newt Gingrich is beginning to soar in the polls for many reasons. He is clearly the leader in the debates, which are really question and answer forums, for the Republican nomination. This is decidedly a factor in his popularity among those people who watch them.

His assault on the media’s hypocrisy concerning how they treat Democrats as opposed to Republicans is something to which people are drawn. This is something which people have been talking about for years and have not been able to do anything about beyond turning off the MSM news programs. Newt is getting back at the press for the duplicity of the press, a business protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to protect the right of the people to get the facts about what is going on in our government without government interference. The people of the USA know the media isn’t doing their job and they know the media has become an opinion generating machine for the Democratic Party.

People are angry. People are fuming at the President, at Congress and at the way their freedoms are being whittled away incrementally. They are angry at SCOTUS for legislating from the Bench. People are tired of being dictated to, of having their elections overturned by activist judges who are not elected.

But there is something much more subtle about his popularity that stems from this anger: it’s the way his vicious attacks on President (and I use that word loosely) Obama are seen by citizens. Newt is the only candidate to not only go after the media and the government, but he unequivocally goes after Obama in a way that people can’t. Common citizens, (actually, we’re subjects now,) are not allowed to vent the anger we feel openly in a public forum against the President and what he’s doing to our country without the old RACIST label being attached to them. People want to beat someone up for all the draconian actions this government, especially Obama, have taken against WE THE PEOPLE. The anger runs deep and it is frustrating to the people of this country to not be able to physically take their anger out on someone. It is not only pleasing to people that Newt is harassing the press, but that he is aggressively beating Obama’s policies to a pulp and it’s satisfying to those who can’t get up on a stage and speak their minds. The fact that firearm sales have skyrocketed is indicative of people’s fears and anger. People are ready to fight in the streets to protect the Constitution of the United States. Newt appears to be doing this for them in a verbal barrage calling legislatures, and the press, on their inequities.

This is probably the most important election we’re going to have as a country since the Constitution was adopted by the original Thirteen States. The Civil War elections weren’t even as important because that didn’t decide which direction our country would take on so many different levels of political tangents. Lincoln had to contend with the split of the country and yes, it was a Constitutional Crisis but he didn’t have to be concerned about massive government spending, Social Security, Welfare, wars in several different countries waged by a small number of American volunteers or any of the other issues we as Americans face today. The most important of the issues we are facing is whether or not we’re to remain a country that practices Free Market Capitalism or become a full blown Marxist state using fascism first, and gradually leading to communism. And Newt isn’t afraid to bring this argument to the debates right now, or those in the future with Obama.
Newt is fulfilling a psychological need of the general populace in this country. And people trust him to continue if he’s eventually elected as the nominee for President of the USA by the rank and file GOP. After all, after Saturday, January 22nd, 2012, there are still 47 states to vote in the primaries. People see Newt as having the brass balls they want the GOP nominee to have and they have not seen this kind of truthfulness or aggression since Reagan.

Oh, wait, is that 54 states?

Loser of Election Sues – Has It Come To This?


Anyone can sue anyone, but this is ridiculous. Voters in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District did not reelect first term Democrat Steve Driehaus (D-OH). So, rather than leave office gracefully, he chose to sue! He filed a lawsuit against the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress. It has also been one of the most effective organizations involved in the fight to stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List under a Ohio’s False Statement Law for “loss of livelihood.” Driehaus’s suit is breaking new legal ground, and may already be inhibiting political speech. It goes directly at the heart of our First Amendment protections, and criminalizes what is a difference of opinion. The Susan B. Anthony List’s characterization of Driehaus as unconcerned with protecting the pro-life stance is not unfounded. One cannot be mad at the facts. So, as long as the attacks are not outright lies, then they are protected under the First Amendment. Driehaus’ lawsuit has absolutely no claim on which to stand.

Driehaus first filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, but he dropped the complaint in mid-November, 2010. He then filed a federal lawsuit. “I have chosen to proceed against the SBA List in federal court because the issue at stake goes beyond the purview of the Ohio Elections Commission,” Driehaus said. “As more and more interests are able to anonymously spend unlimited sums of money in attempts to defame public servants and influence our elections, it is imperative that groups such as the SBA List be held to account for their behavior. Lies have consequences.” There are many things said during political campaigns that subsequently prove untrue. What the Susan B. Anthony List said about pro-life Democrats, such as Driehaus, who gave Obama the votes he needed to pass healthcare just doesn’t happen to be one of them.

Driehaus claims that what the Susan B. Anthony List said in its public communications amounted to a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat. What is most amazing is that, rather than laugh the suit out of court, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee, is allowing it to go forward. And Judge Timothy Black is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. Why he doesn’t recuse himself from this case is a mystery. We can question Black’s ability to be impartial if he used to head up the local affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Association.

The Susan B. Anthony List must now pay an attorney to defend against this lawsuit. I think the time has come for the lawsuit loser to pay ALL court proceedings and reimburse the winner’s expenses. Further, why has the MSM has largely ignored this case.

But that’s just my opinion.

Recent Entries »