Tag Archives: Obama

News

Who has done more for religious liberty? Bush or Obama?

1 Comment

One place where religious liberty is under attack is in China. What do Chinese Christians think about Bush and Obama? (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

Leading Chinese Christian dissidents blasted the Obama administration Thursday, saying it had done virtually nothing to advance the cause of religious freedom.

“For the past two years, in public it’s been almost dead silence,” said Bob Fu, founder and president of the China Aid Association, an international Chirstian human rights group.

He said private pleas to State Department officials to publicly mention names of jailed and “disappeared” Christian leaders had fallen on deaf ears.

“Although I see some similarities between this administration and the last one — of course, both put an emphasis on business and trade — at least President [George W.] Bush singled out religious freedom as a foreign policy priority. He was very vocal, he made lots of policy speeches, he was not ashamed to talk about it.”

Mr. Fu, whose organization has headquarters in Midland, Texas, was in Washington on Thursday to join a six-member delegation of Christian leaders from China at the National Prayer Breakfast. Chinese authorities barred three of the six from leaving the country.

Religious freedom in China has been a growing international issue in recent years as the nation’s Christian population has mushroomed. Though the Chinese government has given space to tightly controlled state-sanctioned churches, the vast majority of the country’s Christian population — more than 100 million, by some estimates — prefer to join independent “house churches,” which remain heavily persecuted.

Zheng Leguo, a prominent evangelist from Zhejiang province, said that house-church Christians “prayed for the re-election of President Bush because he cared about the religious-freedom issue and they thought having him in office would keep them further from prison.”

“The Chinese-government-sanctioned church was praying for Mr. John Kerry,” he quipped, referring to the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.

The article also notes that former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, an Obama-appointee, hasn’t done anything for the Chinese Christians. He is also pro-amnesty, a believer in man-made global warming, and a supporter of same-sex civil unions. Apparently, he is running for the 2012 Republican nomination! What a laugh.

Videos

Planned Parenthood caught helping pimp to run underage sex-trafficking ring

Leave a comment

Mary sent me this shocking story from National Review.

Excerpt:

…[T]he actor playing the pimp literally walks into a New Jersey Planned Parenthood clinic announcing he is involved in sex work and that some of the girls are underage.The clinic office manager clearly gets the picture. Not that she’s being set up. But that he needs her help to keep operating. And she’s willing to help. He says he has a sexually transmitted disease and is worried one of the girls working for him may have given it to him. But he also has other service inquiries to inquire about.

And all of this seems like another day at the office for the Planned Parenthood clinic worker. Where she’s coaching this sex trafficker on how to get underage girls he indicates he is employing as sex slaves from Asia.

The clinic worker even assumes the girls are illegal. Watch the video. Do watch the video. She has no doubt what she’s dealing with in the scenario.

Here’s the video:

And more from the post:

Talking about underage girls at one point, she even offers her philosophy that an underage girl is “still entitled to care without mom knowing what the hell is going on.”

And apparently even if mom is far out of the picture and she’s slaving away for a pimp, birth control should be provided, abortions should be provided.

[I]n this particular Pert Amboy clinic, a sex trafficker was coached into how to make everything “look as legit as possible.” Coaching. “For the most part, we want as little information as possible,” she explained. The Planned Parenthood worker’s only obstacle to providing him the full “streamlined” services he wants to keep his business running is some auditing details she’s worried they could get caught on for abortions of these girls, in the country illegally, under 14 and 13, needing abortions. Saying – laughing — “You’ve never got this from me. Just to make all our lives easier,” she hands the pimp the name of another, non-Planned Parenthood clinic, which can get away with more. “They’re protocols are not as strict as ours, they get audited differently.”

When asked how long a girl might have to wait to get back to the work of the sex trade after an abortion, two weeks minimum is the answer. He protests, “We’ve still got to make money.” The clinic worker understands his predicament and so advises that the girls can still work “Waist up, or just be that extra action walking by” to advertise the girls who are still at full-body work.

Remember, Planned Parenthood, like ACORN, teacher unions, labor unions, trial lawyers, welfare collectors and abortion providers are all pillars of the Democrat party. If you like subsidizing the kinds of activities that these groups engage in, (e.g. – voter fraud, etc.), then by all means – vote Democrat. It’s very important that we understand what it means when someone says “I vote Democrat”. It means “I think that taxpayers should subsidize Planned Parenthood to assist pimps with their underage sex-trafficking businesses”. It’s practically in the Democrat party platform. And besides, Planned Parenthood needs to perform as many abortions as possible – that’s how they make the money they use to contribute to Democrats. It’s all about the money.

If you vote for Republicans, then you get all the immediate cessation of all subsidies for Planned Parenthood, and a ban on taxpayer-funding of abortions. Period. I am talking about the federal level here – the entire country.

There is a difference between the two parties.

News

Obamacare struck down as unconstitutional by Florida judge

1 Comment

Hans Bader again, writing at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Excerpt:

A judge in Florida just declared the health care law known as “Obamacare” unconstitutional, ruling it void in its entirety. Judge Vinson rightly declared the health care law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. (Under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison (2000), which I helped litigate, only “economic activity” can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, with the possible exception of those non-economic activities that harm instrumentalities of interstate commerce or cross state lines.)

Judge Vinson also rightly declared the law as a whole unconstitutional. The health care law lacks a severability clause. So if a major provision like the individual mandate is unconstitutional — as it indeed was — then the whole law must be struck down.

[…]As I noted earlier in The Washington Examiner, “To justify preserving the rest of the law, the judge” in the earlier Virginia case “cited a 2010 Supreme Court ruling [Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB] that invalidated part of a law — but kept the rest of it in force. But that case involved a law passed almost unanimously by Congress, which would have passed it even without the challenged provision. Obamacare is totally different. It was barely passed by a divided Congress, but only as a package. Supporters admitted that the unconstitutional part of it — the insurance mandate — was the law’s heart. Obamacare’s legion of special-interest giveaways that are ‘extraneous to health care’ does not alter that.” In short, Obamacare’s individual mandate is not “volitionally severable,” as case law requires.

The individual mandate provision also was not “functionally” severable from the rest of the law, since the very Congress that passed Obamacare deemed the individual absolutely “essential” to the Act’s overarching goals (as Judge Vinson in Florida correctly noted).

[…]Cato legal scholar Ilya Shapiro, who filed briefs against the law in Virginia, comments on today’s decision here, calling it a “victory for federalism and individual liberty

I also got two more opinions about what this means:

Not sure who to believe. An injunction would have been better.