2012 Presidential Election

The religion and religious views of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are all widely known. They are reported on, discussed, and insulted regularly in the press. On the other hand, discussing President Obama’s religious views is apparently not in the realm of permitted discussion. That’s because Obama’s religious philosophy seems to have a lot more to do with politics than spirituality – and the press doesn’t want you to know anything about it. Imagine if during the Presidental debates some brave journalist asked: “President Obama; you spent around twenty years as an active, contributing member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, which is considered to be the most preeminent church in the country preaching they refer to as “Black Liberation Theology”. Since most Americans aren’t familiar with the tenants of Black Liberation Theology, can you briefly explain what it is and broadly explain how it fits your own personal belief structure and where, if at all, you disagree with its teachings.” This is a perfectly fair question. There is no hidden “gotcha” and it’s based on facts that are not in dispute. However, there is almost no possibility the press will ever ask it. Note that the question was not the softball, “President Obama, are you a Christian?” The question of whether or not Barack Obama is a “true Christian” is an unanswerable sideshow, which is exactly why the press loves to focus on it. It deflects from the real issue, which is Obama’s two decades of association with Black Liberation Theology. Actually, discussing Black Liberation Theology even might lay to rest some of the (silly, in my opinion) discussion about whether Obama is a “secret Muslim,” because one of the motivating factors behind both Black Liberation Theology and Trinity United Church of Christ is a reaction against Muslims (such as Malcolm X) who said that black people should not be Christians; hence Trinity’s use of the slogan “Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian.” Doesn’t matter though; the press will never ask it. While his association with Trinity United may debatably help establish Barack Obama’s bona fides as a Christian, it also strengthens the claim that Barack Obama is some variant of a Marxist because there’s a clear connection between the ideas of Black Liberation Theology and Marxism. Note that I said the ideas, not a particular person, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Candidate Obama, with the help of a willing press corps, was able to pull an Alinsky on Rev. Wright – freeze him, focus on one person, make them the issue, then throw them under the bus and let your defenders scream that you’re being attacked for guilt by association.  Wright is another sideshow that avoids the real question. No, the issue is allowing the President to explain in his own words what Black Liberation Theology is and to give a broad sense of his agreement or disagreement with it. We don’t need hours of theological minutia but the public deserves to hear as much as the philosophy of the church Obama attended, since we already have been deluged with the stories about the religion of the Republican candidates. Will it ever happen? I don’t see how – but we can always pray for a miracle.

Here is the original post:
Media Skewers Santorum, Romney On Faith, What About Obama?

Citing Rick Santorum questioning President Obama's “theology” and recent comments form evangelist Franklin Graham, on Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie wondered: “Does religion belong in our political discourse?” Show panelists – attorney Star Jones, advertising executive Donny Deutsch, and NBC medical editor Nancy Snyderman – gave a resounding no: > JONES: Not if people are going to actually be talking about the relationship that they have with God or Christ or Buddha or whomever. I think it's inappropriate for people to bring in their own personal religion in politics. > DEUTSCH: I think religion is the problem in the world. We all fight about religion and to me, everybody has their own faith and God bless. That is part of who somebody is….I think it's terrible what they do and they use it divisively – but it's part of who somebody is, so it's hard to dissect it out. > SNYDERMAN: Yeah, but it's this pushing people's buttons….It's the, “Obama's still a Muslim, you can't trust a Mormon”….It wasn't that long ago that Jack Kennedy was a Catholic. And so, if we don't do it to advance conversations, we do it to throw up roadblocks. Guthrie followed up: “Do you think talking about religion in the context of politics hurts religion? Does it bother any of you?” Jones chimed in: “Only when you have somebody who is hypocritical standing up there and trying to put themselves on the cross. You know, don't use Christ in order to advance something when you know good and well you're not being a Christian.” Considering that Today has promoted the religion debate in its political coverage on Monday , Tuesday , and Wednesday , it's curious the broadcast would suddenly fret over candidates discussing faith. Here is a transcript of the February 23 panel discussion: 9:10AM ET SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Actually we have a hot topic to talk about, religion and politics. You know the old saying, never discuss religion or politics, well, in this campaign season we're hearing a lot of both. I mean you had Rick Santorum the other day, comments that some people interpreted as him questioning the President's theology. NANCY SNYDERMAN: Because he used the word “theology.” GUTHRIE: Right. Which he has an explanation for that. But even we heard of Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham, questioning Mitt Romney's faith, questioning the President's faith. So the basic question I put out to you, does religion belong in our political discourse? Let's start with you, Star. STAR JONES: Not if people are going to actually be talking about the relationship that they have with God or Christ or Buddha or whomever. I think it's inappropriate for people to bring in their own personal religion in politics. Because politics is culture. It's not about Christianity or Judaism. GUTHRIE: Do you think that character has no place in politics? JONES: Character absolutely has a place, because it shows judgment or lack thereof. GUTHRIE: But if religion drives your character or your decisions is it not relevant? JONES: But religion is different than relationship. Religion is about your affiliation with a certain doctrine. Relationship is about your affiliation with God. DONNY DEUTSCH: But Star – now we can go back to fighting. JONES: Yes. DEUTSCH: But the interesting thing is, look, I think religion is the problem in the world. We all fight about religion and to me, everybody has their own faith and God bless. That is part of who somebody is. So it's very hard to tell an electorate, “Well, you can keep religion out of it, but talk about relationships.” SNYDERMAN: Yeah, but Donny- DEUTSCH: By the way, as long as – no, no, no, I think it's terrible what they do and they use it divisively – but it's part of who somebody is, so it's hard to dissect it out. SNYDERMAN: Yeah, but it's this pushing people's buttons. JONES: That's what it is. DEUTSCH: Duh. SNYDERMAN: It's the, “Obama's still a Muslim,… DEUTSCH: Of course it is, it's disgusting. SNYDERMAN: …you can't trust a Mormon.” DEUTSCH: But it's hard to keep- SNYDERMAN: It wasn't that long ago that Jack Kennedy was a Catholic. And so, if we don't do it to advance conversations,… DEUTSCH: Of course we don't. SNYDERMAN: …we do it to throw up roadblocks. DEUTSCH: It's wrong but it's impossible to keep it out of the discussion. GUTHRIE: Do you – you may argue that politics – that religion doesn't belong in politics. Do you think talking about religion in the context of politics hurts religion? Does it bother any of you to see how-? JONES: Only when you have somebody who is hypocritical standing up there and trying to put themselves on the cross. You know, don't use Christ in order to advance something when you know good and well you're not being a Christian. There's a big difference.

Read more:
‘Today’ Show Panel Ponders: ‘Does Religion Belong in Our Political Discourse?’

What do Barbara Streisand, the Pritzker Family, Jewish Communal Fund and the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston have in common?  Along with other Jewish related charitable foundations they are all helping to fund the Antisemitism of Media Matters for America (MMFA). The Daily Caller recently published internal MMFA documents exposing the group’s coordination with the White House and liberal media outlets such as MSNBC and Politico. The objective is to control the storyline Americans see every day as news. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by The DC[Daily Caller], Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage. Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.” I have been investigating MMFA since early 2007 when they were primarily designed to protect Hilary Clinton from “right wing” attacks. Once Barack Obama became the 2008 nominee they switched tactics to protecting the nominee and his progressive agenda. Sadly, rather than becoming a true media watchdog, they lowered themselves to name-calling and the use of truth in their writing became unnecessary. Part of their new attack strategy was directed against Jews and Israel, as the progressive agenda looks at Israel as a roadblock to a world where American and Arab leaders can sit in front of a campfire to sing “Kumbaya.” The antisemitism of Media Matters took a leap forward when it hired M.J. Rosenberg to blunt criticism of Obama’s Israel policies. While there was no proof that this was a White House request, the strong coordination between the White House and Media Matters suggests that this may be the case.  Rosenberg is a former AIPAC employee who served as editor of the Near East Report but was forced out because AIPAC wanted the magazine to be more clearly aligned to their pro-Israel agenda. From 1998-2009, he was director of policy at Israel Policy Forum (IPF) where he strengthened his attacks not only on Israel, but on anyone who dared to support the Jewish State. At the IPF, and even to a larger extent at MMfA,  Rosenberg regularly questioned the patriotism of American Jews who support Israel (calling them Israel firsters), claimed those same Jews (he calls them the Israel lobby) controls the media and America’s foreign policy. In December, MMFA’s sister organization Center for American Progress (run by Obama buddy John Podesta) went after the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Not to be bullied, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center fought back. Rabbi Cooper spoke out against the Antisemitism of MMFA and the Center for American Progress. “ Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly difficult in this country to take a position sympathetic to the Jewish state and in favor of the continuation of America’s historic strong alliance with Israel without being called “an Israel Firster” and charged with “dual loyalties.…. CAP blogger Eli Clifton joined Media Matters Senior Foreign Policy Fellow MJ Rosenberg in using Twitter to promote an article accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance of pushing “Western groupthink that has for centuries justified wars and countless atrocities against the Arab world . . .[that’s] representative of the way many Americans feel toward Muslims and Arabs — that they are all terrorists.” Rosenberg himself has repeatedly smeared Jewish groups such the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as “Israel Firsters.” Not many people were surprised when the Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the use of the dual loyalty term, but when the Jewish progressive magazine, The Tablet condemned CAP and MMFA for its use of anti-Semitic stereotypes, eyebrows were raised. The root of this problem is not a twenty-something blogger writing something stupid on the Internet. Rather, it is that anti-Semitic rhetoric and logic are being protected and justified by those who are supposed to be gatekeepers. These people, often in the service of their larger political aims, are willing to apologize for or ignore what is obviously Jew-baiting and Jew-hatred…..This isn’t how the world works. Americans’ sensitivity to racist language directed at African-Americans has not made Americans insensitive to “real” anti-black racism. Rather it has made us scrupulous about our language, and subsequently our beliefs and practices have come to reflect, if not wholly fulfill, the promises embodied in this country’s founding documents…..What makes people insensitive to racism is when American political and intellectual elites refuse to confront racist language. The use of phrases like “Israel Firster” and “dual loyalist” that are based on anti-Semitic tropes is anti-Semitic. So is the belief that Jews fan the flames of hatred for discussing the opinions of those who hate them Eventually the CAP apologized and fired those responsible but MMfA, through its hired hitman MJ Rosenberg, continues their antisemitic ranting. One of the MMfA items published by the Daily Caller report was a list of foundations who donated money to keep Media Matters spewing antisemitic hatred. After some additional research we discovered a number of those foundations have Jewish goals, donate to Jewish causes, or had Jewish founders, who help fund the antisemitic Media Matters. Some of the names on this list stand out, for example Jay Robert (J.B.) Pritzker the president of his family foundation is very involved in Jewish causes including AIPAC and making sure the lessons of the Shoah are taught in public schools. Is his support of President Obama so strong that he ignores MMfA’s questioning of Jewish loyalty to America? I would ask the same of the Rappoport Foundation who gives generously to the Jerusalem Foundation and United Jewish Communities, the Ellis Foundation who donates so generously to Hillel and many others on the above list. For comic relief I can report that the Lear Foundation, founded by TV executive Norman Lear, gave both to Media Matters and the Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of tolerance; perhaps he was trying to hedge his bets by supporting accused and accuser. As for the Jewish community federations of Cleveland, San Diego and San Francisco as well as the combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston there is no excuse. These organizations have no right to take funds directed toward Jewish charities and spend it on partisan secular politics. Sometimes we Jews tend to be our own worst enemies.  As Ze’ev Jabotinsky said, Jews shut their eyes to one of the most elementary rules of life, that you must not “meet halfway” those who do not want to meet you. Media Matters for America didn’t just start spreading antisemitic stereotypes in December and neither is the bigotry a new exercise for their hired hitman M.J. Rosenberg. It is incredible that some Jewish foundations care so desperately about pushing the liberal agenda that they don’t bother (or don’t care) to understand that those same liberal organizations are pushing an antisemitic agenda. Its time for these groups (and their donors) to wake up and smell the cholent.

Read more:
Why Are These Jewish Foundations Funding Antisemitism?

On Wednesday's NBC Today, correspondent Peter Alexander noted how the Republican primary “has increasingly become laced with references to religion” and predicted that in the upcoming GOP debate on CNN, “[Rick] Santorum is likely to be peppered with questions about his remarks on what he called the President's 'phony theology.'” Later in the report, Alexander touted Mitt Romney being drawn into the issue: “Romney has tried to narrow his focus to the economy. But at a town hall meeting on Tuesday he was asked how he would protect religious freedom and answered by attacking the President.” After a sound bite of Romney describing how President Obama “hangs around” with people who have a “secular agenda,” Alexander dutifully forwarded the White House defense: “The Obama campaign quickly fired back, calling Romney's comments 'disgraceful.'” Throughout the segment, the headline on screen proclaimed: “Faith and Politics; Religion Takes Center Stage For Romney & Santorum.” Making sure it stayed “center stage,” Alexander conflated the Republican candidates with comments from evangelist Franklin Graham on MSNBC on Tuesday: “Reverend Billy Graham's son, praised Santorum for espousing what he called 'Christian values.' While casting doubt on the President's faith.” In the clip of Morning Joe that followed, co-host Willie Geist grilled Graham on whether he believed Obama was Muslim: “By your definition he's not a Christian?…But you do not believe he's a Muslim?…Categorically not a Muslim?” Alexander did provide some balance, noting Sarah Palin criticizing the media: ALEXANDER: Tuesday night Sarah Palin weighed in, blaming the media for what she considers a double standard that attacks conservatives for invoking the Bible, but ignores President Obama when he does the same, like earlier this month at the National Prayer Breakfast. BARACK OBAMA: For unto whom much is given, much shall be required. SARAH PALIN: The theology that he would adopt by reading the Book of Luke results in him being able to say we need to increase taxes on hard-working Americans? That's okay? But Rick Santorum talking about good and evil isn't okay? On Tuesday, Alexander portrayed Santorum's recent mention of Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, as evidence of the former Pennsylvania Senator “fanning the flames” in the debate over religion and taking a “shot” at the President's faith. At the end of his Wednesday report, Alexander actually corrected a mistake from his Tuesday reporting on Wright: “And a clarification on a story we reported here yesterday. During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jeremiah Wright was not forced to resign for controversial comments. In fact, he had already announced his retirement from his church when those comments drew national attention.”

“GOP says HHS mandate is about liberty, not contraception. Dems say it’s about contraception, not liberty. Media accept and amplify Democratic framing.” So the Weekly Standard ’s Stephen Hayes adroitly tweeted noontime Sunday in an accurate observation demonstrated by Meet the Press where host David Gregory opened the roundtable: “I want to start with…a big theme in this race so far. And Politico , I thought, captured the headline here with this theme, ‘2012: The year of birth control moms? ’” Later, Gregory touted how “I see this bumper sticker,” which, he insisted, “we’ve heard everybody talk about,” that proclaims “GM’s back on top, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Cuing up New York Times White House correspondent Helene Cooper, Gregory noted the obvious: “That’s the record that this President wants to run on.” Cooper affirmed: “That’s absolutely the record that he wants to run on.” Following his roundtable opening set up with the “Year of Birth Control Moms,” Gregory, who earlier pressed guest Congressman Paul Ryan about how Republicans are alienating women, highlighted how liberal Senator Patty Murray, “wrote this based on that and also that all-male image of that contraception hearing”: “I feel,” she wrote, “I woke up this morning on the set of Mad Men . Republicans have set their time machine for the 1950s – back when, according to one prominent Republican,” aforementioned, “women could just ‘put aspirin between their knees’ to avoid getting pregnant.” NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell soon charged that “when Rick Santorum talks about theology and takes that shot at the President, which many people believe, including I think some moderate Republicans in those states, think crosses a line.” Near the end of the program, Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, formerly the Wall Street Journal ’s Washington Bureau Chief, recognized Obama’s poll numbers are going up not because his policies are being embraced but because Republicans are imploding, and so Obama’s re-election team has “really benefited because the Republicans, both in the presidential level and the congressional level, have wreaked havoc on the brand name. They could recover from that, but that’s why Obama’s doing so well, not because of anything he’s done.” From the roundtable on the Sunday, February 19 Meet the Press , which included Republican strategist Ed Gillespie who got some opportunities to sneak in some conservative points: DAVID GREGORY: And I want to talk, Andrea, I want to start with you with a big theme in this race so far. And Politico , I thought, captured the headline here with this theme, “2012: The year of ‘birth control moms’?” Is, I thought we were talking about the economy. And Paul Ryan wants to talk more about the economy, but the reality is, in the Republican race, social issues seem to be energizing the base and fueling Rick Santorum. ANDREA MITCHELL: And the question is whether this is going to energize the base and help him win the primaries and perhaps go on to the nomination, although that is being hotly debated among Republican leaders, or whether this is really going to debilitate the Republican Party when they need in a general election to go up against Barack Obama and win independents, win suburban moms in both parties and women who generally accept birth control. GREGORY: This aspirin business, Foster Friess, who’s a Santorum supporter, said to you on your program that the best means of birth control is putting a Bayer aspirin between your legs, which is kind of an old joke. He said a bad joke. Rick Santorum said it was a bad joke, distanced himself, and yet it sort of leads to that headline. And it leads to this, Ed Gillespie, which is a fundraising letter by the head of the Democratic Committee, senatorial re-election committee, Patty Murray, who wrote this based on that and also that all-male image of that contraception hearing. “I feel,” she wrote, “I woke up this morning on the set of Mad Men. Republicans have set their time machine for the 1950s – back when, according to one prominent Republican,” aforementioned, “women could just ‘put aspirin between their knees’ to avoid getting pregnant. This after Republicans opened a hearing on birth control – and banned women from testifying! We’ve already accumulated 65,000 signatures on our petition opposing their Aspirin Agenda. But I’m too mad to stop at ‘opposing.’ It’s time we punished the people responsible by taking away their jobs.” How do you see this?

The controversial contraception, abortifacients and sterilization mandate has quickly become a national debate unlike the country has seen since the passage of Obamacare. Regardless of how the White House is currently positioned to accommodate potentially injured religious parties, Accuracy in Media discovered an alarming narrative developing in the mainstream press. Pundits and reporters have chosen to apply the debate to the horse-race for the GOP nomination, or another battle in the culture war for reproductive rights. Unfortunately a larger, constitutionally intrinsic question is being overlooked: will this pending mandate forever endanger our religious liberties for the sake of public policy? Accuracy in Media sat down with Fr. Joseph Gonzales, Imam Johari Abdul-Malik and Rabbi Charles Feinberg to discuss how this precious balance can be maintained in the 21st Century. Accuracy in Media understands that these three clergymen cannot speak for their respective monotheistic religions as whole. We executed this project to proactively urge a course correction of dominant media narratives.

Follow this link:
Imam, Priest, Rabbi: Religious Liberty and The Birth Control Mandate

From denying God’s existence , to attacking Christians , to attacking the Bible , Hollywood has launched an all-out war on Christianity in America. A new black comedy titled “God Bless America” is Hollywood’s latest effort mocking God and the United States. Comedian ‘Bobcat’ Goldthwait produced the new film titled “God Bless America” featuring a hopeless man named Frank fed up with an increasingly crude and vapid society. Frank and a teenage girl he meets along the way decide to “off the stupidest, cruelest, and most repellent members of society” – and proceed to do so with reckless abandon. Frank poses the question: “Why have a civilization if we are not longer interested in being civilized?” The trailer makes sure to include a hate-mongering Christian minister attacking Jews and homosexuals among the killer’s many targets. While Frank’s rage against a shallow society is understandable, “God Bless America,” like Showtime’s hit TV show “Dexter,” celebrates a man who justifies using violence against people he considers evil, claiming “I only want to kill people who deserve to die.” Unlike “Dexter,” the movie is clearly a black comedy that does not take itself seriously. However, the movie’s title takes a gratuitous shot at the Christian God, by implying that God has “blessed” America with fools and idiots that need to be eliminated, and at those who revere America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Goldthwait also depicts Christians in the usual Hollywood manner – by equating them all with the members of the extremist Westboro Baptist Church. If a director were to make a movie titled “Allah Bless Saudi Arabia,” and had his protagonist indiscriminately shoot hatemongering imams, teenaged girls and people in movie theaters, he would be instantly blacklisted in Hollywood as a hateful bigot. But attacks on Christians garner only praise from the artistic community. A movie that invokes the name of any religion’s God to justify gratuitous violence, no matter how cynically or “humorously,” goes beyond the pale.

In an attempt to be “edgy,” singer Nicki Minaj did the most banal thing possible at the Grammys on Feb. 12. She mocked the Roman Catholic Church in a live performance of her new song “Roman Holiday.” Her anti-Catholic mishmash of a performance came with the support of the group that produced the Grammys, The Recording Academy . Rapper Nicki Minaj gave a sacrilegious performance mocking a host of Catholic rituals and practices, including the sacrament of confession and the rite of exorcism. Her performance began in a confessional, snarling at a “priest” as if she were possessed. ( Video available here ) A pre-taped video was also shown that resembled the movie “The Exorcist.” It showed Minaj climbing on a ceiling and hissing at a would-be “exorcist.” At the end of Minaj’s performance, a “choir” sang a perverted version of “O Come All Ye Faithful” while she levitated. Shattering stained glass windows, the Inquisition, altar boys, and other references to Catholic imagery punctuated the song. Minaj’s number was laden with a heavy dose of sexual imagery. Scantily clad dancers resembling devils slithered around Minaj while she sang. At one point in the song, a female dancer straddled an altar boy kneeling in prayer in a sexual pose. Some critics reacted negatively to Minaj’s performance. The Washington Post’s Maura Judkis wrote that “Those who tuned in for Nicki Minaj ’s Grammy performance experienced a wave of emotion: First they were confused, then amused and then just plain angry.” Hollie McKay of Fox News wrote that “The mood backstage was a mixture of confusion, embarrassment and offense as the performance dragged on, going deeper and deeper in mocking Catholic faith.” A leading Catholic group, The Catholic League, slammed Nicki Minaj’s “vulgar” performance saying: “It’s bad enough that Catholics have to fight for their rights vis-

“I was struck looking at this,” Washington Post columnist and former foreign editor David Ignatius expressed on ABC’s This Week in admiring how Barack Obama on Friday adjusted the contraception mandate, hailing “the ability to do a do-over quickly” since the administration was not “done deaf” and “they did make changes and this is now a policy that you can defend.” Unaddressed, how it’s just an accounting gimmick and Catholic institutions would still be required to cover what they morally oppose, to say nothing of what gives the government the right to require private insurers to offer a service for “free.” Over on NBC’s Meet the Press , when Peggy Noonan noted how Obama picked the leftist position over the First Amendment, another Washington Post columnist and former reporter, E.J. Dionne Jr. fired back: “Barack Obama is a moderate progressive with the emphasis on moderate. Most socialists are insulted when Barack Obama is called a socialist.” George Will, on This Week pointed out “this is an accounting gimmick that they’ve done that in no way ends the complicity of Catholic institutions and individuals in delivering services they consider morally abhorrent.” He also zinged the Catholic bishops as he explained this is the liberalism in action which they supported: “The Catholic bishops, it serves them right. They're the ones who were really hot for ObamaCare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor and this is what it looks like when the government decides it's going to make your health care choices for you.” David Ignatius , a former Assistant Managing Editor for business news at the Washington Post and Executive Editor of the International Herald Tribune , praised Obama’s nimbleness: The White House argues that this is a net cost reducer, avoiding pregnancy, women choosing to do that, it’s less costly to insurance companies and to society than all of the services associated with pregnancy. I was struck looking at this, yes, the White House probably made a mistake in the initial policy. But the ability to do a do-over quickly, to – you can make a mistake, but you really get in trouble in politics when you’re tone deaf, you don’t listen to criticism and make changes – and they did make changes and this is now a policy that you can defend. You say, we understand the objections of Catholics that they shouldn't be forced to pay- Peggy Noonan, on NBC’s Meet the Press , observed: As a conservative, as I look at the administration: here’s one thing that I think is kind of new for the past few years, the leftists, if you will, part of the President’s base seems to me to be, (a) more leftist and (b) more powerful. When you have a White House in the past month E.J. that says NARAL – National Abortion Rights Action League – and Planned Parenthood are here, the Catholic church and I would argue the First Amendment are here, who wins? NARAL and Planned Parenthood. That to me is the kind of kind political calculation, just politics that is kind of mad, and that suggests a certain sort of — I hate to say extremism, but something rather extreme. May I say Bill Clinton wouldn’t have done it. This is not a traditional Democratic Party thing. To which, E.J. Dionne Jr. , a correspondent for the New York Times and Washington Post before taking up column writing, retorted: We agree there was overreach on this contraception rule. But I know the Left. The Left is not to the left of where it was. That’s number one. Number two, Barack Obama is a moderate progressive with the emphasis on moderate. Most socialists are insulted when Barack Obama is called a socialist. It’s absurd that this man is a socialist. Back to the February 12 This Week , George Will zinged the Catholic bishops as he explained this is the liberalism in action which they supported: Three points, as Paul Ryan said to you, this is an accounting gimmick that they’ve done that in no way ends the complicity of Catholic institutions and individuals in delivering services they consider morally abhorrent. Second, you asked the question how did this come about, George [Stephanopoulos], this is what liberalism looks like, this is what the progressive state does. It tries to break all the institutions of civil society, all the institutions that mediate between the individual and the state. They have to break them to the saddle of the state. Third, the Catholic bishops, it serves them right. They’re the ones who were really hot for ObamaCare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor and this is what it looks like when the government decides it’s going to make your health care choices for you.

View original post here:
Washington Post’s Ignatius Hails Obama’s Nimble Contraception Policy; Will Zings Bishops: ‘It Serves Them Right’

Saturday's CBS Evening News ran a piece highlighting the complaints of a Catholic Democrat – Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter , recounting his opposition to President Obama's attempt to force Catholic employers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Winters asserted that he is “very angry about this,” and substitute anchor Elaine Quijano noted that, although he voted for President Obama in 2008, he plans not to vote this year. (Video below) Quijano used a soundbite of Winters giving a warning to Obama during the show's opening teaser: ELAINE QUIJANO: President Obama's policy on contraception proves to be a bitter pill for Catholic bishops, and for many of the faithful as well. MICHAEL SEAN WINTERS, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER: Don't be meddling in my church. As she introduced the story the CBS substitute anchor noted that Catholic bishops had rejected an attempt by President Obama to compromise with him on the contraception mandate, and warned that the President is risking his reelection: Roman Catholic bishops say President Obama's revised policy on contraception coverage for employees, quote, “continues to involve needless government intrusion on the internal governance of religious institutions.” Some among the Catholic rank and file agree, and that's tonight's “Weekend Journal,” the issue that threatens to alienate a key block of the President's winning 2008 coalition. The report balanced out Winters's critcisms of Obama by also including a nurse who works for a Catholic hospital who wants the contraception mandate to be adopted as she claims her family “can't afford” $30 a month to pay for birth control pills. After running the clip of Winters warning President Obama against “meddling in my church,” Quijano concluded the report by informing viewers that Winters plans not to vote for Obama again: Tracy Kemmerling says her support for the President never wavered during this debate, but Michael Sean Winters says he no longer trusts this White House and plans not to vote in November. Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, February 11, CBS Evening News : ELAINE QUIJANO, IN OPENING TEASER: President Obama's policy on contraception proves to be a bitter pill for Catholic bishops, and for many of the faithful as well. MICHAEL SEAN WINTERS, CATHOLIC DEMOCRAT: Don't be meddling in my church. (…) QUIJANO: Roman Catholic bishops say President Obama's revised policy on contraception coverage for employees, quote, “continues to involve needless government intrusion on the internal governance of religious institutions.” Some among the Catholic rank and file agree, and that's tonight's “Weekend Journal,” the issue that threatens to alienate a key block of the President's winning 2008 coalition. MICHAEL SEAN WINTERS, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER: I'm a Catholic first and a Democrat second. QUIJANO: Michael Sean Winters was among the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for President Obama in 2008, but he feels the White House badly mishandled the issue of contraception coverage. You're angry? WINTERS: Yeah, I'm still very angry about this. I really think he has imperiled his own presidency, which I think has achieved great good for the country. QUIJANO: Winters says the debate was about the government interfering with religious freedom, yet for others like Tracy Kemmerling, the real issue was about her right to health care. TRACY KEMMERLING, NURSE: We don't practice any form of birth control right now, and hope for the best. QUIJANO: Kemmerling is a nurse and mother of two. She's not Catholic. She would like to use birth control pills but doesn't. The Catholic hospital where she works does not offer health insurance coverage for birth control. Paying the $30 a month out of pocket is an expense she feels her family can't afford. KEMMERLING: I feel like the choice has been taken away from me as a health care worker and as a woman. I should have that right. QUIJANO: Kemmerling is relieved the cost of birth control will soon be picked up by an insurer, but Winters feels the White House overstepped its bounds with its initial policy decision which would have forced Catholic institutions to set aside moral objections to contraception. WINTERS: I may disagree with my bishops profoundly, but they're my bishops. But when somebody who is not part of that family comes in and starts criticizing them, my, you know, back goes up, and I become a bit of a stiff-necked Catholic and say, “That's not your place.” QUIJANO: It's not the White House's place? WINTERS: Absolutely, or any political leader. Don't be meddling in my church. QUIJANO: Tracy Kemmerling says her support for the President never wavered during this debate, but Michael Sean Winters says he no longer trusts this White House and plans not to vote in November.