Daily Archives: July 11, 2012
The battle against that particularly perverse consequence of Obamacare called HHS Mandate does not stop after the unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court to allow the law to stand (albeit, I seem to gather, the specific religious freedom aspect of the HHS mandate should be examined separately).
As you read here, a proposal of new legislation has now been launched, meant to avoid the secularist dhimma of having to pay to live according to your religion. With the important difference that whilst the dhimma is meant to be, broadly and generally speaking, affordable – because the money is generally wanted – the HHS tax isn’t – because what is wanted is the destruction of religious values as worthy of protection rather than the use of Catholics as a source of tax revenue -.
You can read the details on the linked article, and persuade yourself ad abundantiam that the scope of such a tax is certainly not the one of having companies to pay it, but to dissuade them from behaving in a way would attract the tax. This kind of punitive tax is what we expect from nannies generally, but this is an extreme example.
I still am unable to see the catastrophe in the refusal of the Supreme Court to, well, abort Obamacare. Whilst it wasn’t the outcome I would have wished, in the end it is now in the hands of the American citizens to liquidate both the law and those who taught it; and as the Congress is very likely, and the Senate not unlikely to be in Republican hands come November whatever the outcome of the Presidential race, I cannot see an easy life for Obamacare anyway; this, without the legal challenges yet to come.
What, I think, must NOT happen, is people refusing to vote against Obama because Romney is a mormon. This would be, I think, a very grave mistake. In my eyes, even a syphilitic drug-addicted drunkard without the anti-Christian ideology would be vastly times preferable to the present occupier.
Reblog of the day
I have said many times by all his human shortcomings Bishop Williamson easily puts into shade (and into shame) every English bishop, bar none, for clarity of message and purpose, let alone orthodoxy and sincere love for the Church and the flock.
In the last days, there have been in the Catholic blogosphere some disturbing discussions about homosexuality.
Well, thinks I, let us see whether at the SSPX someone has some clear exposition on the matter, avoiding yours truly to spend an entire night with the adrenaline over the roof and the persistent suspicion of living in a world so blinded by stupidity not even the worst abominations can be seen anymore.
I have, therefore, looked and have found a letter of said Bishop Williamson which, like many other articles I have read of him (when he talks about Catholicism, that is), is simply exemplary.
The comment section will…
View original post 1,765 more words
It can be that this article depicts the reality a bit rosier than it is. It cannot be denied that it will not be an easy, or a rapid task, to awaken the US Catholics to the abomination of the HHS in particular, and Obama in general. But it cannot be denied that the potential for defeat here is huge.
I do not consider this in terms of how long will it take before the US Catholics vote like a man in the way a Catholics is supposed to vote (and before that, to think). What I think is most important, is the shift. With almost one voter in four officially a Catholic, and Catholicism still exercising a grip on many people – at a subtle and profound level, which it might take time to let emerge – Obama is bargaining a short-term doubtful gain: the renewed support of the pervert fraction, most of whom would have voted for him anyway, with the slow but, if the local clergy hold their ground, in time unavoidable erosion of a traditional Democratic power base.
How many Catholics who voted for him in 2008 need to change their mind for his hopes in November to be doomed? Ten percent? Would he survive if only five percent (one in twenty!) would decide to change allegiance or better, to give his allegiance to Catholicism? And how many others is he angering in the meantime? Will all those socially conservative Blacks orderly flock to the polls and give him their vote to ” the first gay president” in 2012 as they did the hyped “change” in 2008?
In my eyes, Obama is surrounded by mad liberals like him, saying to him what he would like to hear. He listens to them, and thinks that they represent the country out there. Being an inflexible, ideologised hardliner, he refuses to learn the lesson of the mid-term election and thinks instead that if he only insists on his line, the world will in the end recognise his supreme wisdom.
What is his weapon to gain the confidence of his Catholic voters? That not to force an employer to pay for an abortion is “unfair”? “Unfair”?! Really?
I hope the chap does not change his mind any time soon, because in the meantime Catholics might be slowly awakening; and when they do, either the Democrats change their tune of they will lose three presidential election in a row again.