I find it unseemly to go around screaming "liar" all over the place. But they've gone a bit far this time.
An honest debate over Obama's HHS mandate is the last thing liberals want, mainly because they would lose on the merits, and in the process reveal themselves as the despots they really are. Fear-mongering and demagoguery are more up their alley, and for that they must be willing to tell some real whoppers. Here's Jonah Goldberg on the Left's big lie about the mandate:
“Let’s admit what this debate is really and what Republicans really want to take away from American women. It is contraception,” Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) outrageously claimed while opposing the Blunt amendment. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) said the GOP was yearning to return to “the Dark Ages . . . when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to.”My favorite is the line about enslaving women and trading them as property. Perhaps Sen. Lautenberg is drawing on his own personal memories of the "Dark Ages"? Maybe three decades in the Senate is enough.
The Obama campaign insists that “if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women’s health care decisions for them” and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.
It’s all so breathtakingly mendacious. Rather than transport us to President Franklin Pierce’s America, never mind Charlemagne’s Europe, the Blunt amendment would send America hurtling back to January 2012. In that Handmaid’s Tale of an America, women were free to buy birth control from their local grocery store or Walmart pharmacy, and religious employers could opt not to subsidize the purchase. What a terrifying time that must have been for America’s women.
Jonah makes a good point here:
Part of the problem is simply psychological projection. Since many liberals believe there’s no valid limiting principle on government’s ability to do “good,” they assume that conservatives believe there’s no valid limiting principle to do “bad.”Meanwhile, we learn that the Obama administration knows more about Catholic teachings than the bishops:
Dolan writes: “At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America.”That shouldn't come as any surprise. Lest we forget, Obama is the best at everything:
He said, “The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”Speaking of Obama's Ciceronian oratory, here's a particularly pathetic example.
Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.