These days watching the news sometimes makes me yell at my poor television. The things going on in this country with our government and the craziness of some of our citizens absolutely drive me nuts. And it only takes a few minutes of watching the news to get me riled up. I'll give you some examples.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four decision, sided with Hobby Lobby on the religious rights of closely held for-profit businesses not to be forced to provide certain birth control methods to which they object for religious purposes. The left went crazy. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, to Sandra Fluke and countless others reacted by one again quoting the "war on women" and that the SCOTUS effectively took away their "right to reproductive health care!" But let's look rationally at the details for a moment.
Hobby Lobby provides health care coverage for their full time employees. Included in that health care coverage are 16 of 20 different forms of birth control. The Supreme Court decision yesterday gave Hobby Lobby the right to refuse to cover four specific types of birth control that effectively cause fetuses to be aborted spontaneously. Hobby Lobby's Christian owners/founders believe abortion is wrong according to their deeply held religious beliefs. They are not "refusing to provide health care" nor are they "refusing to provide reproductive health care" - they are saying "We object to these four on Biblical principles and we do not want to be forced to provide them." The majority of the court agreed.
Some women are complaining that five men made the majority decision because it doesn't affect them. But honestly, anyone who thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan are going to vote against any part of the Affordable Health Care Act lives in a fantasy world. It came down to the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by none other than Bill Clinton. And now his wife, who wants to be President so badly she can't stand it, is complaining because the Supreme Court upheld a religious right that her husband guaranteed with legislation. Go figure.
The White House responded to the decision with the typical arrogance of Barack Obama. They have pointed out over the years that President Obama is a “constitutional lawyer,” - even though some staff at the University of Chicago say he was rarely there.
Sucking up to the President in typical leftist media fashion, ABC's Jim Avila asked “Does the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office agree with the Supreme Court’s premise that companies have freedom of speech and companies have freedom of religion?”
Josh Earnest's response was classic Obama rhetoric:
“As the constitutional lawyer that sits in the Oval Office would tell you: He would read the entire decision before he passed judgment, in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far — based on the preliminary reading of that decision — is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses. We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court.”
As a "constitutional lawyer" does the President believe he knows more about it than the Supreme Court Justices? What am I saying? Of course he does. He has pointed out their mistakes every time they have ruled against him.
“There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage.” That statement, besides being grammatically incorrect, is misleading. They still have contraceptive coverage. They just won't get coverage for those four types of contraception from a company whose owners believe abortion is murder. And seriously – if free, abortion-inducing contraception is that important as a condition of your employment you simply need to find a new place in which to work.
Liberals took to Twitter yesterday following the decision and began calling for Hobby Lobby stores to be burned to the ground. Really? The Supreme Court of the United States makes a decision you disagree with so you want to burn down the stores that took the case to the court? All I can say is – true liberal “tolerance” on display.
In other news – John McCain showed his true colors following the despicable campaign trick pulled by Thad Cochran in Mississippi last week. Cochran lied about his Tea Party backed challenger during his campaign for re-election and was able to get about 35,000 Democrats to vote for him. Had Cochran stuck to Republican voters he would have lost the election by 8 points.
John McCain praised Cochran's tactics. "There are some people complaining that African-American voters voted. But I thought one of the major priorities of the Republican Party was to get all minority and ethnic voters out to vote for Republicans."
McCain conveniently left out the fact that these “African-American voters” were also Democrats.
McCain said Cochran's “get out the vote campaign” was “excellent” and that he will face similar re-election difficulties in Arizona if he decides to run again in November. "The key is you'd better pay attention, you'd better work hard, you'd better organize. And you'd better understand that there's a strong anti-Washington/anti-incumbency sentiment out there, which is justified and you've got your work cut out for you."
Apparently John McCain, should he decide to run again, will do whatever it takes to get re-elected, particularly since his popularity in his own state is waning. He so much as stated that very intention.
And finally, I became amused at Bill O'Reilly's anger last week at a popular blogger who ambushed Hillary Clinton on the street and asked her if she would sign one of her books and dedicate it to murdered Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. O'Reilly said the man's tactic was disgusting and rude. Apparently Bill believes in “Do as I say and not as I do.” He sends his producer, Jesse Watters, out to ambush people for interviews on a regular basis. But it seems O'Reilly draws the line at doing it to Hillary Clinton. Why is that, Bill? Because she's Hillary Clinton?
At the current time Mrs. Clinton is an author whose book debut is failing miserably. She's not a Secretary of State nor is she a Presidential candidate. Well... perhaps in her mind she is. She is the wife of a former President and as such she deserves a modicum of respect. But no more than the respect she showed to the four murdered Americans in Benghazi and their families. Mrs. Clinton lied to the faces of the families, telling them about the video. How respectful is that?
No Bill – what that blogger did to Hillary was no different than your hit pieces done by Jesse Watters. Remember Judge Baugh? What he did was despicable – but certainly no worse than letting four people be murdered by terrorists and lying about it.