Martin O'Malley - Pioneer In Bogus Human Rights

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who has made no secret of his White House ambitions, has just enlightened us ignorant slobs about the existence of a basic human right earlier this week.  And just what is this "basic human right"?  Trumpets and drum roll, please!

WiFi is a human right!

Yep!  He said that!  And aren't we glad that after languishing over 200 years with a deficient Bill of Rights, we can finally correct the gross oversight of James Madison, George Mason and other Founding Fathers!  Heavens!  What were George Washington, Edmund Randolph and the others thinking when they overlooked the right to WiFi as the Bill of Rights was crafted?

We know, of course, that O'Malley is contemptuous of other real rights, such as the unborn child's right to life.  Progressives like him dream up other bogus "rights" (such as the right to denigrate true marriage) so they can appear to be champions of the people while trying to arrogate to themselves tyrannical power over us all.  Will we let them?

Head of USCCB Grovels Before Obama

Most of us heard the news that in the "eleventh hour" before the HHS contraception mandate was set to bare its teeth against Catholic agencies, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blocked the Obama cartel from enforcing that mandate against agencies using the Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust.  Among the orders who were spared was the Little Sisters of the Poor.  It is nothing short of miraculous that Sotomayor, an Obama appointee and pro-abortion person would stand against the demagogue who placed her in that post.   Some opine that Sotomayor is remembering that she's Catholic.  While that would indeed be lovely, I think the cause is something more mundane - she is remembering that her function is to uphold the United States Constitution, with its all-important checks and balances and limits of power.

Sadly this point seems to be lost on Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the USCCB.  In the wake of Sotomayor's action, he is "requesting" that Obama temporarily exempt religious institutions from the contraception/abortifacient mandate.  According to the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is charged with enforcing laws that have been enacted by Congress and signed by him.  He does not have sole discretion about what laws get enforced and what laws don't get enforced.  He is not a dictator, as much as Obama pictures himself to be.  In placing this wrong-headed petition before Obama, the Archbishop is tacitly (and hopefully unwittingly) affirming this unconstitutional view of presidential authority.

But the problems with the Archbishop's request are even more fundamental.  There is no denying that Obamacare would not have been law of the land had it not been for the support of Catholics in high places and even that of the USCCB.  That's right.  The USCCB came out in support of Obamacare, minus the obvious abortion provisions.  They failed to acknowledge two facts: 1) the inherent antipathy any socialized medical system will have for God and life and 2) the Messiah Most Mindless would lie through his teeth to garner any kind of support and then stab his supporters in the back.

If Archbishop Kurtz truly seeks to protect the Church against the overreach of Obamacare, he will first have to acknowledge the pivotal role that the USCCB played in bringing about this disaster on the entire country.  He and his brother bishops will have to repent of their role and their readiness to sell their souls to the progressives in power to obtain a few measly crumbs of considerations and concessions.  They will then be obliged, as a body, to oppose Obamacare in its entirety and bring all their resources to bear on the utter annihilation of the Obamacare menace.

That groveling letter will earn no concessions for the Church - at least none that really matter.  It shows a complete lack of regard for those Catholics who do not work in Church-affiliated enterprises.  It asks for an exercise of authority outside the bounds of the United States Constitution and shows complete cowardice in the face of a de facto tyrant.  It's time for the bishops to face up to reality and start acting like men of God as opposed to wimps.

The State Is Subordinate To The Church

The June 20th Vortex touches upon what happens when people forget that secular government is subordinate to God.  I agree with it - for the most part.  I think his portrayal of US history is a bit simplistic.  For one thing, he lumps the U.S. into a category of "western democracies".  However, the United States of America is not and never was a pure democracy.  The Founding Fathers feared the notion of a pure democracy, realizing it would lead to mob rule (as happened in France shortly after the American Revolution).  We are a Constitutional Republic; that is we elect representatives who act on our behalf and these representatives themselves are limited by the United States Constitution with its Bill of Rights.

Our culture started to degrade not only when God became marginalized from public life, but also when the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were likewise degraded.   Both tend to lend to the de facto deification of the state into a totalitarian monstrosity.  The IRS and NSA spy scandals are simply the latest manifestations of this leviathan.

Now do I think the United States is beyond repair?  Maybe, maybe not.  I won't go so far as to make a definitive projection yet, for if we carry on like the US is beyond repair, we will bring about what is called the "self-fulfilling prophesy".

Publisher Puts "Warning Labels" On Controversial Literature

A publishing outfit called Wilder Publications has put a "parental advisory" on what its compilation of "classic works" called Foundations of Freedom.  The advisory can be read on page 3 of this Amazon preview.  Note that these works are "products of their times and do not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents may wish to discuss with their children how views..have changed..before allowing them to read this classic work."

And what, pray tell, might be these nefarious, subversive "classic works"?  They are:

• The Declaration of Independence
• The United States Constitution
• The Articles of Confederation
• The Federalist Papers
• Common Sense

A reader is quoted in this Fox News account as saying that Wilder Publications "is trying to protect children from dangerous ideas" such as "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."  That reader may be spot-on.  Here's a smattering of other reader comments.  In addition, Facebook users, there is a Boycott Wilder Page; I for one will visit and "like" it.

I understand that the new Congress will be holding readings of the United States Constitution.  Will the TV stations start putting up warnings before these sessions are broadcast?

Obama Shows His Imperious Streak

From the Baltimore Examiner we read that "the White House issued new rules that require Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) to provide free services for dozens of screening, laboratory, and other types of preventive testing measures."  Read that a few times and let the implications become clear in your minds.  And no, I'm not looking at this from a "health care" aspect.  There are much more fundamental issues here, more basic threats that are embodied in this action.

Think in terms of the United States Constitution.  Remember that quaint little document, the one that our elected officials (and law enforcement officials) swear to uphold as they take their oaths of office?  Let's "drill down" a bit and consider a key constitutional concept, namely, separation of powers.  Recall that it is in the purview of the legislative branch to enact laws.  Is the White House part of the legislative branch?  Of course not; it's a key component of the executive branch, whose function it is to execute laws issued by the legislative branch.  In other words, the White House doesn't issue laws "on the fly", as it were.  That means basically that the White House had no constitutional authority whatsoever to make what amounts to a de facto imperial pronouncement. 

The Founding Fathers feared just such a thing as is embodied in the Examiner article.  I now beg leave to give a my own translation of what issued yesterday from the White House:

"Hear ye, hear ye!  Harken now, ye Great Unwashed, miserable peasants that you are!  I, the Messiah Most Miserable, will now dictate how insurance industries must conduct their business, in utter conformity with my messianic will and ego!"   Does that sound farcical?  I wish I could agree!

We need to vote next November those who will uphold life and who will vote to repeal the deadly Obama Hell Bill.