Monday, April 30, 2012

If you think I was kidding, just watch Kathleen Sebelius squirm

I told you that the left does not care one whit about your religious liberty, and the subsequent comments from secularists confirmed that premise.

But now let's listen to one of the left's great heroes, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, as she is schooled questioned by Congressman Trey Gowdy (where'd this amazing man come from??) about the contraception/abortifacient mandate. Grab some popcorn, as it's one of the more entertaining bits of film you'll see all year:




Did you love that or what? (I learned a lot that I didn't know. Thanks, Mr. Gowdy!)

That remarkable and elucidating exchange is more evidence that they do not give a flying fig about your religious freedom or the U.S. Constitution.

(And, I'm not so sure that Kathleen Sebelius -- a Catholic -- cares too much about her soul at this point, either. It's actually a bit haunting to watch a fellow Catholic sell her own Faith down the river in the name of abortion politics, but remember that this is the woman who publicly, proudly supports the dismemberment of human children through all nine months of gestation.)

Most Americans don't realize that Obamacare handed Sebelius an unconscionable amount of power. According to that massive, unread law, the head of HHS alone decides what will be considered "preventative services", which can then be mandated. No surprise then when this radical "reproductive rights" ideologue didn't choose free toothpaste for all, but rather free contraception/abortifacients/sterilization. All of which must, according to our dear HHS leader, be forcibly provided by her fellow Catholics, some of whom actually do serve God, obey Church teachings, and still fear hell.

Anyway, the video was a treat, but I really don't want to see any more such displays of raw ignorance wedded to unbridled power ever again. So, can we please vote these dangerous anti-Catholic goofballs out of office in November? Pretty please?





PS: Now you know the kind of video that makes me entertained, but here's one that makes me angry. And it ain't about the left.



.

44 comments:

  1. I'll be voting them out for sure. They are sick and misguided and obviously don't care one iota about the constitution.

    I had seen this video floating around FB but I hadn't had a a chance to watch it until now. WOW. That guy is amazing.

    Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Loved the first video, not even going to bother with the second. I can only handle so much negative awareness before I fall into a pit of despair.

    Those people are sick. I write them saying that my contributing to these services for others goes against my faith, and they reply that they would love to respect my wishes, if only it didn't involve decreasing access to the very services I find abhorrent!

    ReplyDelete
  3. If only all of our other legislators - and our elected officials - were as logical, well-informed, understanding and accepting of our Constitution as Mr. Gowdy is. He totally owned Sebelius.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WHO is this woman? I was targeted by some weird supporter of hers website recently...they put mean information about me on it.
    How did I even end up on their mean radar you got me?

    They are called something like Pro Sebelius Catholics or something like that.

    I sincerely do not have time to even react to them. But, I have wondererd quickly, who the heck are these people who support Kathleen and how did she GET THIS WAY?

    Seriously. What is this woman's background? She is probably what the President thinks is the ideal woman. Forget Hilary. This woman rules the direction of this country more than any single other person/woman.

    Scary is right!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not American, but I love that Mr. Gowdy. Maybe he can come up here to Canada and grill some of our "Catholic" pro-abort politicians!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Loved it. Thanks for sharing. I love watching logic and truth unfold in a debate and that was a perfect example. Go Mr. Gowdy!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ugh, that is painful to watch. We can worry about "balancing" the two issues (religious liberty vs. free birth control) just as soon as free birth control shows up in the constitution. I'm sure it's there somewhere, right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's funny, I found that first one and shared it on my Facebook page yesterday! It's so great! I wish he had had more time to tell her what's what. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I loved watching this so much! Where did Gowdy come from? Catholics-1 Sebelius-0

    ReplyDelete
  10. I know… I was so upset that his time ran out! Sebelius was probably never so relieved, ha ha!

    As one of you said last time, perhaps we've become the United States of Birth Control. Religious freedom means nothing next to having folks hand you free contraception. Keep an eye out for the left's use of the term "sexual rights". It encompasses everything from GLBT "rights" to reproductive "justice" (because nature was unjust in creating a woman's body to be healthily fertile, I suppose) to abortion "rights" and the right to free birth control and morning after pills, for starters.

    Can't recall seeing "sexual rights" anywhere in our Constitution, but apparently a good chunk of our nation and leaders see it there. Or else -- they are making it up.

    Meanwhile, I do see religious liberty front and center and foundational.

    I believe that the Constitution means very little to Obama and his people, and remember that Obama taught Constitutional law! Shiver!

    But then again, remember this, too:

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a liberal on our own Supreme Court, believes that the Constitution is not a good model for other nations to follow. Here's an excerpt from one of many articles on that shocking statement, made in an interview on foreign soil, just three months ago:

    "I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012... I might look to the South African constitution, [which] ...was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, [and] have an independent judiciary." Or Canada's, or the European Convention on Human Rights; these are all, to her mind, superior to the US system. 

She does not seem to grasp that our Constitution, in defining and restraining governments' powers to only very specific and limited functions, protects "human rights" better than any diaphanous listing of the rights we are officially allowed to enjoy.

    [Ginsberg's] viewpoint assumes that rights come from government, not that they are to be protected by government. Justice Ginsberg's view thus makes government the absolute giver and taker of all rights. We are not, in other words, endowed with any "unalienable rights." We get only what the government decides we should get, and which the majority at the time thinks are important, and which make it onto the ballot, which will be controlled by... whom?


    Here's the rest of that article:

    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/talking-sense/2012/feb/10/justice-ginsberg-publicly-denigrates-constitution-/

    And the video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNC-kbmpscE

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a shame this kind of thing isn't making it onto the news...but it is nice to see it circulating on FB.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you so much for sharing the Trey Gowdy video! It was amazing. She came across as just some radical citizen wanting her way, not the head of HHS. Scary!

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think we all need to write a letter to Mr. Gowdy to encourage him in his tenacity...
    I think this is a good reminder to us all to do the research so we know what we are talking about, especially when we make decisions that affect others. It's a great video, that I had watched and plan to share all over fb and wherever else I can... only thing is, does it change anything?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow, I guess you can't argue with the constitution. That is the most well worded critique I have heard so far.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What district is Mr. Gowdy from? He is awesome!!!!!!!

    And Sebelius governed KS and destroyed documents for Planned Parenthood to help them avoid getting prosecuted for covering up illegalities in Wichita and other KS locations. She and Tiller were best of friends. THAT is why she is where she is...

    ReplyDelete
  16. by the way...I mean the "best of friends" comment facetiously. I have no idea whether Sebelius personally knew George Tiller or not, but she made it easy for him to continue his abortion operation fairly unobstructed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Michelle - I don't know about best of friends, but they definitely were friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michelle, I saw a pic of them together when I was researching yesterday. They were very much associates and he funded her campaigns nicely. She hosted Tiller and his staff at a private event at the governor's mansion. You can see all the happy photos here:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/sebelius_has_ti.html

    Also in the smiling photos is another late-term abortionist, LeRoy Carhart.

    Must have been a fun party.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, there you go. If anyone could put my mind at peace about Sebelius and her friendship with George Tiller, it would be you and JoAnna! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  20. Best thing I've seen so far - that was awesome! She totally got schooled!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gorgeous. The fact that she didn't even have a legal document to stand on and point to, even to protect herself, is remarkable.
    He makes the beautiful point that this is all politically driven, not legally reasoned. Kathleen's homework grade = fail.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Leila,

    You're right about the massive amount of power Ms. Sebelius has in her role as HHS Secretary.

    At least they picked a Catholic for that role so we can rest assured that the department's moral compass is properly aligned and that religeous liberties will be given their due consideration. Right??? [extreme sarcasm alert]

    By the way, Trey Gowdy is a Rebublican Congressman from South Carolina, and I just signed up to receive email alerts from his office. You can sign up too by visiting his website, http://gowdy.house.gov/

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yea, if we're talking about free preventative services, I'd love to get some free toothpaste. Toothpaste is way too expensive. And free deodorant (that prevents bad body odor). That's also expensive. And can I get some free allergy meds too? See, that prevents my awful allergy symptoms which actually keep me locked up inside away from the world if I don't take my medicine. Oh, there are so many free things I would love to have!

    And that video was fantastic. *Squirm squirm* I'm not a constitutional lawyer either, but I know that the mandate is against the constitution. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  24. WOW she got SCHOOLED!!!!! haha I enjoyed watching it so much....her cluelessness made me laugh. Oh God, if only stuff like this made the news. Stupid liberal media.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Makes me want to move to South Carolina’s 4th District. lol Love this guy!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yea, if we're talking about free preventative services, I'd love to get some free toothpaste. Toothpaste is way too expensive. And free deodorant (that prevents bad body odor). That's also expensive. And can I get some free allergy meds too? See, that prevents my awful allergy symptoms which actually keep me locked up inside away from the world if I don't take my medicine. Oh, there are so many free things I would love to have!

    See, now THOSE are preventative services that I can get behind. If contraception is necessary as preventative care (for preventing pregnancy) then why not cigarettes as preventative care (for preventing stress and therefore heart disease).

    ReplyDelete
  27. That video made me smile! I don't believe I've ever heard of this man before but I think I like him very much so far! Thanks for posting!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Someone just got their a$$ served to them on a platter...Defer to lawyers Kathleen all you want....deny, deny, deny....Give me a break!

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's all agenda - clearly. You are right about power in the wrong hands. Will the American public wake up enough to care this November? Ack! I sure hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  30. See, now THOSE are preventative services that I can get behind. If contraception is necessary as preventative care (for preventing pregnancy) then why not cigarettes as preventative care (for preventing stress and therefore heart disease).

    Bethany! This is brilliant! See, now a lot of folks need to smoke and even drink to keep their stress low. Sure, there are some health risks to some folks in drinking and smoking, but not everyone is going to have serious side effects from having a ciggy butt and a few cocktails. Just like contraception, sure there are some risks to pumping the body up with steroids (especially on girls who are not even fully grown yet), and perhaps those risks are even deadly in some folks (see here:
    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/02/sad-reminder-that-pill-was-never.html ), but surely those are risks we are willing to take.

    And here's another parallel: Drinking and smoking don't actually cure any disease or disorder, and neither does contraception! But we just like what we feel are the outcomes of making our bodies not work the way they should (i.e., bringing smoke into our lungs for reasons of relaxation, putting excess alcohol into our bodies for the ultimate outcome of feeling good, and breaking our reproductive system so that we can have recreational sex without stressful consequences, like kids.)

    So the end doesn't have to be bodily health, it can simply be convenience or feeling good, even if we have to break the body or derail healthy bodily functions to get there.

    Thanks for giving me a bunch of new food for thought on this!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think what is not emphasized enough in the healh care debate is the appropriateness (or not) of the insurance model itself.

    I submit that some components of the products and services we use to care for our health would be better utilized outside of insurance. As an alternative to the current system, people could pay premiums to an insurance company that would cover them only in the event of major health problems, the cost of which could be financially debilitating to a family. It's worth it for families to pay for this type of insurance, even if they don't incur a major illness. I would assert that this is the only good reason that health care is associated with insurance. But smaller, more routine items -- like one's desired monthly birth control -- could be paid for by the people outside of insurance.

    Under such a system people would pay less for insurance premiums, but more for certain other items outside of insurance. This would avoid the need to "mandate" that certain items -- birth control, toothpaste, or whatever -- be covered or not covered within insurance plans.

    Ultimately, every item we consume must be paid for by someone, whether individually or via pooled insuance (or pooled tax dollars) where the healthy help subsidize the sick. I think trying to jam every possible preventative care item through an insurance plan is a bad idea, and some of the reasons why are probably obvious at this point.

    I also think the debate should focus on the topic of why health insurance should (or should not, in my opinion) be employer-based. There are many good arguments for de-linking health insurance from people's employers, but I'll save that topic for another time.

    The broader issue, which applies to much more in our nation's policy debate than just health care, is who should pay for what and what things should be subsidized by the many for the benefit of fewer people. That's not a question with an easy answer but I think we should challenge some of our long-held assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve, I think your questions are very good ones!! I agree that we need to rethink almost all of how we go about this, and the answer is not big government takeover.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, it makes a lot of sense not to link insurance to employment, particularly because only certain kinds of jobs give insurance--the current system puts self-employed individuals at a disadvantage and makes it more difficult for disabled people to re-enter the work force when they face losing medicare and not being able to work full-time (mostly the only way to get insurance).

    Regarding Mr. Gowdy: I'm not seeing a direct parallel to the examples he's giving and the HHS mandate. He talks about religious groups' rights to do or not do certain practices THEMSELVES. That's not the same as providing insurance to employees NOT of that religion who are working in institutions that are NOT specifically for Catholics. Also, he seems to be suggesting that ANY practice based on religion should be protected, even if it defies the law. But there are many exceptions to this--polygamy, honor killings, etc etc. I would say the government went too far when it granted followers of the Santeria religion the right to sacrifice animals (yuck).

    I doubt any thinking person would argue that every religious practice of every religion should be protected under the constitution. Rights/benefits of the religious followers vs. the public at large need to be weighed, which is what HHS is doing, which is its job. If you disagree with the decision, that's fine, but I don't think it makes sense to say the "left" is doing away with religious freedom.

    It's also true that KS did not make this decision PERSONALLY-- it was done with many individuals with varying expertise. If Gowdy had asked her a medical question she would likely have had to consult a physician, as she is not a doctor. And a specific legal question would have to be answered by an attorney.

    No reason to relish in an unwarranted victory lap.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Actually Johanne, it is a grave sin for me to provide anyone with contraception. It's not just about using it. Catholics have been providing healthcare to people (and employing people) since before the Union was founded. And never has not providing contraception seen as violating anyone's rights, a la honor killings.

    Are you saying that you have a Constitutional right to have your contraception provided to you for free by me? Or by the Church or Church entities? Are you really suggesting that?

    Relish, I will. Because in the end, we will not comply. You can't sell out my religious liberty for $40 worth of free Pills and devices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. **And never before has not providing contraception been seen as violating anyone's rights, a la honor killings.

      (sorry, typos)

      Delete
  35. Actually, I don't use contraception, but I assume you mean "you" generically. First of all, there are many laws and regulations out there that don't directly to a constitutional right. I have a right to electricity if I pay my utility bill but I don't think you'll find that in the constitution. So, I wouldn't say a person has "constitutional" right to have contraception provided but I think it's a sound law. And, as I understand it, the Catholic church doesn't actually have to pay the premiums--the insurance companies have to provide the contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes, sorry, generic "you".

    No one is disputing a legal right to birth control (or to cigarettes or any other harmful thing that is legal to put in your body or use).

    But my constitutional right to religious expression (including the right NOT to provide someone birth control) is foundational. No one is intruding upon the right of a woman to go get her own contraception. But constitutionally, there is no right to coerce me to pay for it. My religious freedom trumps your desire (not "right") to have me give you something for free.

    I really pray you can see the difference.

    And as for the insurance companies being the ones to "provide" (or forced to), that is specious. First of all because there are Catholic-owned insurance companies. Second, because many Catholic businesses self-insure (but are still forced to violate their consciences under this bogus law), and just because you stick a middle man in there, it doesn't mean the birth control is not being provided by the Church entities. It's like I've said, there is no moral difference between me buying my son porn, or providing the money to the porn shop with the understanding that they are to give him the porn for free. Same moral difference.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "I have a right to electricity if I pay my utility bill but I don't think you'll find that in the constitution."

    Yes, and you have the legal right to birth control if you go to Walgreens and buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks, Johanne. I really hope and pray that even people who use and love birth control will stand with us on the religious liberty issue here.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kathleen Sebelius sure looked stupid.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!