…we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal confirms that President Obama’s “accommodation” has simply made matters worse for him. An editorial sums up the lameness of his attempt at making his edict more politically tolerable:

So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are “free,” including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.

Under the original Health and Human Services regulation, all religious institutions except for houses of worship would be required to cover birth control, including hospitals, schools and charities. Under the new rule, which the White House stresses is “an accommodation” and not a compromise, nonprofit religious organizations won’t have to directly cover birth control and can opt out. But the insurers they hire to cover their employees can’t opt out. If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you’re a rational person.

But, jumping on the muted initial statement by the Catholic bishops about the “accommodation,” President Obama’s Catholic left base rushed in with their response, signaling their satisfaction with the shell game, never mind that the consciences of religious organizations can’t tell the difference between directly covering free contraception, etc. or writing a check out to an insurance company to do it for them. And never mind that they are satisfied with President Obama- the government- telling a private company what it can and cannot do.

Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, who provided the “appearance” of Catholic support for ObamaCare to the president, responded to the “accommodation:”

The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions. The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed. We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. The unity of Catholic organizations in addressing this concern was a sign of its importance. This difference has at times been uncomfortable but it has helped our country sort through an issue that has been important throughout the history of our great democracy.

So, if we follow the logic of Sister Keehan, it appears it is against one’s conscience to kill someone yourself, but it is not against one’s conscience to hire someone to kill on your behalf. As the Wall Street Journal so aptly noted, “If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you’re a rational person.”

Obama's Alinsky-Style Power Analysis

New York Times columnist Jodi Kantor’s book, The Obamas, tries very, very hard to paint a sympathetic picture of her eponymous subject matter–she gets her digs in against the supposedly racist tea party everywhere she can–but every once and a while the truth cracks through. Take this interview at the Texas Book Festival for example:

The Obamas often don’t mingle freely – they often just stand behind the rope and reach out to shake hands but he sees Jerry Kellman, his old community organizing boss, and he’s so happy to see him he reaches across and pulls him in. And Obama says, “I’m still organizing.” It was a stunning moment and when [Kellman] told me the story, it had echoes of what Valerie Jarrett had told me once – “The senator still thinks of himself as a community organizer.” How fully has this guy resolved himself to what he’s really doing? On the one hand, he’s passing these backroom deals to pass health care reform, but on the other he’s telling his old boss he’s still a community organizer. I think that plays into what will happen in the 2012 race.

Jerry Kellman was Barack Obama’s former boss, a student of Saul Alinsky’s in the 1970s, and a permanent fixture of the progressive left in Chicago.

While some have downplayed Obama’s connections to Saul Alinsky, Kellman’s link is pretty easy to discern.

Here he is talking about his relationship with left-wing activism, Alinksy and Obama in Illinois Issues, a student magazine, for example:

Kellman arrived in Chicago again in 1970, this time to stay for the long haul. He began an education in community organizing at a school run by Saul Alinsky, the late Chicagoan considered by many as the modern practice’s father.

Alinsky was a radical, but his method of reaching the core of people’s needs and concerns through one-on-one interviews influenced many organizers, perhaps most notably Obama.

In 1988, Obama wrote an article for Illinois Issues, “Problems and promise in the inner city,” about his experiences as an organizer in and around Chicago. In it, he describes how nowhere was the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. The piece later became part of the book After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

…

Kellman drew a lot from Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, including methods to analyze how power is obtained, and used this knowledge while taking on the mortgage banking industry on Chicago’s west side, in addition to other endeavors.

Not surprisingly, Kellman has a signed copy of Barack Obama’s Dreams of My Father on his desk, with the message, “To Jerry, a friend and a mentor.”

Some of us wish Obama had different friends and mentors.

To appease those they view as rigid, conservative Catholics, the administration’s talking points are that they’ll “work it out” with them, give them a year to “adapt” their consciences to engaging in behavior that is against their values, and, perhaps, the favorite means of the White House to ensure a minimum of voter loss: hand out a waiver.

But, exactly what should be “worked out?” “Adapt” to what? A “waiver” from what? All of this talk of flexibility is helping the White House to muddy up the real issue.

The spin by the White House, in the midst of this constitutional crisis, is simply a variant on its age- old theme that healthcare is an unalienable right that the government must give to people. Remember that, in liberalism, unalienable rights come from the government, not from the Creator. With the contraception, etc. mandate, the administration just tweaked the message a bit- made it a bit “pinker,” dare we say: that all women deserve access to free contraception- including Catholic women. How could we leave Catholic women out? After all, that would be discriminatory, right? Wrong.

Women do not deserve access to free contraception, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs. The word deserve is the linchpin to the common liberal ploy of guilt induction that can only be assuaged, according to liberals, by government intervention. To deserve something is to be entitled to it. Enter the government.

Women- Catholic or not- do not deserve contraception. They choose it. They choose it because they choose to have sexual intercourse. If they choose to have sexual intercourse and do not wish to become pregnant, they take a risk. If they do not wish to take that risk, they could choose not to have sex. If they choose to have sex anyway, then they should pay for contraceptives if they wish to minimize their chances of becoming pregnant. It’s really not so hard.

If women had health savings accounts, which would allow them to purchase health-related needs out of pocket, they could use those accounts to buy contraceptives. They would be free to make their own choices. If they have ObamaCare, they have no choice because the government tells them- and everyone else- how their healthcare dollars will be spent. With ObamaCare, women- and everyone else- pay for those contraceptives, even if they are middle-aged and no longer need them.

To manipulate women- and everyone else- into feeling good about the fact that, with ObamaCare, there is no personal choice in spending healthcare dollars, the Obama administration is telling everyone that women deserve, that they are entitled to, free contraceptives. But, they are lying, because, in the end, women who would choose to purchase contraceptives would spend significantly less if they bought them with their own healthcare dollars from their own health savings account than through the high cost of health insurance and taxes associated with ObamaCare. If we own our health insurance plans, we make the decisions about how the dollars are spent, we look for the best buys for our money, or maybe we choose not to buy at all. When we all become consumers, costs come down, and we are in charge of our bodies.

If those who are outraged by this mandate cave to any attempt by the Obama administration to assuage their ire, they will be committing the same mistake they made in the first place: supporting government intervention in healthcare. Indeed, some in the Church have screwed up big time in its support of government intervention, under the guise of social justice. It is unfortunate that these individuals have contributed to this issue becoming the constitutional crisis it is, simply because they bought into the idea that government should provide the same healthcare for everyone. It is unfortunate that they bought into the idea that government should have the job of redistributing wealth rather than the people themselves who, history has shown, actually do a pretty good job of it on their own, through their own personal charitable donations.

Because some in the Church welcomed government intervention in healthcare, they may be willing to accept a “waiver” of sorts, from the contraception, etc. mandate, from the Obama administration, if one is offered. In that case, however, they will have skirted around the real issue. The big elephant in the room of why anyone at all, private insurers included, Catholic or not, should be forced, by the government, to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs will be overlooked and obfuscated by the allaying of a perceived constitutional crisis concerning freedom of religion.

Liberal women who say they deserve free contraception from the government, are, quite frankly, selling their bodies to the government. They are the least liberated women of all. If the government gives you something because it says you deserve it, it then has a stake in you, and it owns you. Women who make their own choices and use their own dollars to purchase products based on those choices, are, indeed, liberated.

If all Americans used their own healthcare dollars to make their own purchases for their healthcare needs, they would be much freer and likely have more of their own money to boot.

Rick Santorum in Minnesota (Photo: AP / Washington Times)

Conventional wisdom has long held that the 2012 election would be about fiscal and economic issues, not social issues such as abortion or gay marriage. The Tea Party movement seemed to have put limited-government issues ahead of social issues on the Republican agenda. And controversy over the religious views of presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann seemed an obstacle to their success in the general election.

But social conservatism may be due for a revival, for three reasons. First, the Obama administration and the left in general have provoked fights with religious communities. Catholic voters are upset by Obama’s decision to force religious institutions to offer contraceptives and abortifacients under ObamaCare; opponents of gay marriage are upset by (largely) liberal efforts to overturn Proposition 8, California’s 2008 referendum.

Second, fiscal conservatism has proved insufficient, by itself, to sustain opposition to the Obama agenda. The nation’s leading fiscal conservative governors and legislators all declined to run for president; the Tea Party has been unable to settle on a single candidate; and Republicans’ limited-government agenda has stalled in Congress in the face of Democrat stonewalling in the Senate and infighting among House leaders.

Third, the Republican frontrunner, Gov. Mitt Romney, has the resources and the resumé to take the fight to Obama, but has struggled to draw clear contrasts with the President. Both Republicans and Democrats seem unsure what Romney’s core convictions really are. Though charges that he is a “flip-flopper” are somewhat exaggerated, the one shift Romney readily acknowledges is on the abortion issue (he became pro-life in office).

Santorum’s (belated) victory in the Iowa caucuses owed much to his campaign’s explicit appeals to evangelical voters on social issues. Yet even voters who disagree with him on those issues may be attracted by the fact that he has a set of values that he is not willing to sacrifice under any circumstances. After a year of frustrating compromises in Congress–for both sides–Santorum’s strong stances on social issues may be a plus.

Tactically, the former Pennsylvania senator has taken a lesson from rival Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who shares Santorum’s pro-life views but emphasizes his other positions. On yesterday’s Mark Levin Show, for example, Santorum spoke emphatically about individual liberty and economic freedom, but did not spend much time on social issues.

It also remains unclear whether Santorum will pose a serious threat to Romney. But the broader truth indicated by Santorum’s resurgence may be that fiscal and social issues are inseparable–not just because Republicans depend on social conservative votes, but also because economic freedom has often drawn strength from religious freedom.

The church is an imperfect guardian of individual liberty, but Obama’s expansive state is liberty’s clear enemy. That is why 2012 could see a social conservative revival after all.

But now, even Hispanics are having second thoughts about Obama. According to a December Ipsos-Telemundo poll, Obama’s approval rating among Latinos is now down to 56%, as opposed to 86% in April 2009. Although Obama’s unfavorables have risen among Latinos, however, only 14% strongly dislike Obama’s presidential approach. That means there’s room for Obama to move the needle up once again.

He’ll have to do it soon. Obama threatens to match John Kerry’s negative Catholic electoral record – Kerry lost the Catholic vote 52-47 in 2004, and he lost white Catholics 43-56. He still won Pennsylvania, a heavily Catholic state (53%), but he lost Florida (26% Catholic) and Ohio (24% Catholic). The most heavily Catholic battleground states other than those three are New Hampshire (35%), Arizona (31%), Louisiana (30%), and Wisconsin (29%). Obama’s anti-Catholic moves may hurt him there.

We’ve actually already seen some movement in terms of the Catholic vote.

According to the National Catholic Register, in 2010, “For the first time in recent memory, the number of Catholic Republicans in the House of Representatives, 61, nearly equals the number of Democratic members at 64 or 65. That marks a dramatic shift from two years ago, when there were 98 Catholic Democrats and 38 Republicans. Catholic membership in the Senate remains relatively stable.”

But don’t get too hopeful yet, conservatives. Polls from the Public Religion Research Institute show Obama beating Mitt Romney 48-40 among Catholics, and defeating Gingrich 56-32. Will Obamacare’s anti-Catholic bent hurt him? Of course. It’s unclear whether it will hurt him enough against either a newly-converted Catholic with a checkered marital history or a Mormon candidate with problems connecting to lower-income voters.

And I don’t understand that concern. It is the theory of most Democrats that giving money to people stimulates the economy. It should be of no concern to anyone whether that money is used to stimulate patrons of a strip club, liquor store owners, or casino magnates (who BTW are often HUGE political contributors).

The bill is almost completely futile. It won’t insure that welfare money is not spent at a strip club; it only means that the ATM at the gas station across the street from the strip club is going to see a lot more traffic.

This is just the kind of government bias, that gives legitimate business a bad name. Certainly those girls are working as hard as any SEIU employee; whose pensions were paid out of stimulus funds, while they protested in Wisconsin. Money spent on bikini wax, cover stick, and glittery lingerie will trickle down through the economy just like any other stimulus package.

If that money was earmarked for scientific research on the anthropological roots of exotic dancing and its impact on global warming; or if it were an NEA grant to promote the American Folk legacy of lap dancing, there would be no question whether taxpayer money should eventually find its way into a g-string. The welfare recipient should not be punished, since he is actually a victim of a public education system, that did not teach him how to write a proper grant proposal.

Meanwhile, spending money at a casino is no less risky than “investing” in green energy. At the rate subsidized industries like Solyndra and Ener1 have been flying down tubes, a crap shot seems like a much more conservative measure than putting half a billion on Solyndra to win.

And what is wrong with using an EBT card at a liquor store? What the bill effectively does, is limit the amount of ATMs in poor neighborhoods. Many ATMs are privately owned, and grocery stores in poor neighborhoods won’t want to file the paperwork (and campaign contributions) necessary to prove they’re not a “liquor store.” Even if they are a liquor store, there are plenty of legitimate State Approved® items available in liquor stores, like tomato juice, citrus, and Lotto tickets. I might add that most grocery stores not only sell cigarettes and liquor, they sell all the ingredients necessary to make meth. There are a lot of things more intoxicating than liquor, one of them being congressional power

Because, ultimately, what business is it of the government to decide which decisions are made? In this country, we’ve decided that poor people should get free money. There is no way the government can absolutely ensure it isn’t spent on stupid things. (In many cases, it is those same stupid things that caused recipients to be on welfare on the first place.) And does the government have any moral authority in the first place? They can’t even prevent themselves from spending it on stupid things. Which is why we’re 16 trillion dollars in debt.

I think we need a Congressional Budget Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2012.

Chicago tried banning it. Now California wants to do the same. But what’s so controversial about foie gras, the fattened liver of a duck or goose that many diners consider a delicacy?

“Foie gras is universally cruel,” says animal rights activist and founder of the Animal Protection and Rescue League Bryan Pease.

Pease led the fight against foie gras in California, which often got ugly and scary , but he feels that it was all worth it now that the ban on the production of the food product will go into effect this summer.

“This isn’t a product that anyone thinks should be consumed, really,” says Pease, “except for a small group of chefs and promoters.”

Mark Pastore, owner of Incanto restaurant in San Francsico, believes that animal activists, who have threatened him and Incanto’s chef Chris Cosentino, bullied their way into a legislative victory through intimidation and inflated rhetoric.

“I believe that the only way to deal with bullying tactics is to stand up to them,” says Pastore, who started serving foie gras after his fellow chef had acid thrown on his car and received a threatening video of his family and notes reading “stop or be stopped” from anti-foie gras activists.

So is the process of force-feeding ducks to produce foie gras cruel, as Pease alleges? Not so, says lawyer and director of Keep Food Legal, Baylen Linnekin.

“Foie gras is not the result of cruel practice,” says Linnekin. “It’s a bird that can digest or can swallow a fish whole–a large fish.” He also points out that ducks and geese are migratory birds that gorge themselves on food in nature before a winter migration, which is how foie gras, a dish dating back to ancient Egypt, came about in the first place.

The animal activists seem have won the California foie gras fight for now, but Linnekin says that in the wake of the overturned Chicago ban, he’s still optimistic about the future of food freedom.

“Ultimately, choice trumps,” says Linnekin. “It should, and it does. Individual rights are the most important things we have as Americans.”

Written and produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Christopher Sharif Matar and Zach Weissmueller.

Approximately 6 minutes.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.