Boehner Pledges Legislation to Overturn Obama’s Act of Tyranny

Boehner Pledges Legislation to Overturn Obama’s Act of Tyranny February 9, 2012

Hurray for Boehner! Every ally in this struggle is welcome. The sad thing, of course, is that the piece of legislation called the First Amendment is no longer sufficient to oppose this draconian tyranny from our Masters and Civilizers.

Meanwhile, Obama is digging in and trying to get Dems in Congress to join him in the bunker. My hope is that vulnerable Dems will chicken out at the thought of gratuitously kicking their Catholic constituents in the face for the sake of Obama’s vindictive kulturkampf against the Church.

Mean-meanwhile, there’s entirely too much second-guessing among some opponents of Obama that’s starting to remind me of this:

Massive amounts of speculation about how Obama is carefully calculating to do all this in order to make progressive Catholics look good by capitulating at just the right time in order to make the defeat look like a victory and so secure the nomination therefore it’s pointless to try to fight the mandate because either way Obama wins and he is all-powerful and nothing can defeat him sogiveuprightnowetcblahblahblah.

Look. Let’s take it for granted that Obama regards the Church with contempt. That won’t change. And that is a reason not to oppose this draconian rule why? The first order of business is to defeat this mandate. Period. After the mandate is defeated, we can go on to the next order of business. But giving up the fight against the mandate because Obama will (as pols do) try to portray the defeat as a victory is silly. Giving up the fight to defeat the mandate because some people will vote for Obama no matter what is silly. Giving up the fight to defeat the mandate because some people might use Obama’s capitulation as an excuse to vote for him is silly. Obviously the thing to do, after defeating the mandate, is to persuade people that somebody who would do such a thing has no business anywhere near the Presidency and that voting for him again will only give him license to do exactly the same thing without consequences when he is re-elected.

But the first thing to do is to defeat the mandate.

"Well. Religion is interesting. :)"

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"But you're searching and questioning …. and, in Jack's experience, people without any sense of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. Of course I hope the cancer never ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"A "hard Brexit" will never happen. Britain will leave with a deal of some sort. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chris M

    Exactly. It’s nice to plan out the entire chess game in advance.

    ..but you still have to move that first piece.

  • Joseph

    Seriously, Mark? What’s wrong with you, bro? I adhere to that theory that you so elegantly wrote in a run-on sentence conlcluding in blahblahblah (to hammer home the point that anyone who holds to it is too stupid to articulate it with the use of punctuation and that it is all pointless blather regardless), but I’ve never said… “therefore, let’s not fight it”. Man, do you have to stoop so low by continually misconstruing what people say and turn around and portray them as idiots?

    • Mark Shea


      When you constantly keep saying, “No matter what, Obama wins” you are, whether you realize it or not, offering counsels of despair. If you don’t want me to criticize you for offering counsels of despair, stop offering them.

      • Joseph

        Whether he wins or not is irrelevant to fighting this overreach. Where you erred was by painting me as an idiot who can’t articulate a worthless point anyway (a point that most of your readers agreed with, by the way) and by somehow deriving from my statements that I am suggesting we “not fight”.

        If it bothers you that I continually point out that Obama will win his re-election regardless and that if he doesn’t someone just like him will take his place (a counsel of despair indeed… that’s if you aren’t Christian and your Holy Kingdom is actually the USA), then I don’t mind you attacking me on that. Not at all. But in your zeal, you falsified and ridiculed my statements and my intellect.

        • Mark Shea

          I didn’t mention you. If you choose to assume I meant you, that’s up to you.

          • Joseph

            Hmm… considering I was the loudest in your combox exclaiming the theory you so elegantly mocked (and I only recall maybe one or two others that said something similar), and we’ve been having obvious back and forths, why would I not assume that you are not speaking of me?

          • Joseph

            Anyway, assuming that you aren’t speaking of me. That’s great! Thanks! At least we’re clear. But you should still avoid mocking that theory and assuming that by holding it one also is choosing not to fight… for whoever it is that you are accusing.

            • Give it up, Joseph.

              Before you get upset that I’ve told you to shut up, I’ll point out that you’ve just told Mark what he shouldn’t post on his blog.

              Fine, you both agree we should fight Obama’s mandate.

              You seem to disagree whether Obama Catholics who have seen the light on the mandate should be welcomed with open arms. If that’s true, please accept that you and Mark both disagree on the point and move on. It’s Mark’s blog and he’ll post what he wants. If it’s false, then who cares whether Obama wins or not?

              To Mark: I apologize if it appears that I’m trying referee in your blog. I know that I’ve no such authority.

              The point is that we sometimes get wrapped up in whether we’re right or wrong on a particular point. I ought to know, I’m guilty of it myself. It’s then that we start straining a gnats, and diverting ourselves and our energies from the more important things.

              • Mark Shea

                No sweat. 🙂

              • Joseph

                Sure, Bob. My beef isn’t whether or not we agree, as you can read yourself. Hope I didn’t upset you too much.

          • Sal

            Um, I instantly thought of Joseph when I read that part, so I’m not sure the “didn’t name you by name” defense, while technically accurate, holds up here.

            • Mark Shea

              If you instantly thought of Joseph though I didn’t name him, that does rather suggest Joseph’s rhetoric was not mischaracterized, doesn’t it?

  • Tom

    I do not wish to be accused of supporting the administration’s position on this issue because I do not. But why has this issue assumed critical mass now? These very laws have been in place for years in many of the states, even the Republican states. Or am I missing something?

    • Cary

      Check this out:

      Tere is a real difference between the state and federal actions, not defending the states but just saying this is a significant step farther

    • Confederate Papist

      I think you touched on something here that I don’t think you intended; and that’s the fact that people (including myself) have forgotten these atrocious laws were even passed. True, that was passed in 1999 by prior to GOP control of the mansion and legislature….and true that no one has done a damn thing about reversing it. Hell, I don’t remember that passing, or if there was any fanfare or public indignation by prominent Catholics or others, but to be fair, I don’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning either.

      That’s why it should be important to take a stand on this now. Every time the Church gives ground, the more trouble it produces for her flock.

      I don’t buy into that author’s take that we’re only pissed about it now because Obama did it. That’s a straw-man argument, and I’m not saying that you agree with that take, either Tom, I’m just saying I don’t care who’s pushing it at this point,

      • Joseph

        The new media was nubile at that time… and let’s face it, had it not been for the Catholic blogosphere, this federal overreach would probably have gone unnoticed as well.

  • Tim

    Don’t count the First Amendment out yet. It just takes time with Constitutional challenges (which is a good thing ultimately: decisions made with haste are bad decisions).

    I’ve also read that the mandate is illegal (along with being unconstitutional):

    • Tim

      I should say decisions made in haste make bad law.

    • Joseph

      That’s why the lawsuit brought forth by EWTN is such an excellent move.

  • LaVallette

    “Australia is populated by criminals”. Thanks for the heads up!!! :>)