Romney and Obama, November 2012: Two versions of Americanism

I am writing this blog post in an attempt to reach out to folks who still have yet to vote in the upcoming presidential election.  My basic premise is that this race is not about political platforms or social reforms, but rather about our commitment to maintaining a government that uses checks and balances to protect the right to conscience and give every person’s ideas a fair chance in the political process.

We currently have two candidates for president, who represent fundamentally different views of the role of checks and balances and of crucial first amendment rights in American politics.  One has a demonstrated track record of bringing ideological opponents to the table to find real solutions to problems; has emphasized the importance of the different branches of government limiting themselves to their own responsibilities; and has advocated for states being given more latitude in solving problems their own way. 

The other has taken the position of partisanship, pushing for a polarizing agenda to be forced through the political process in spite of bitter protest by half of his constituents; has worked to circumvent constitutional checks and balances on executive power by bullying and even lying to other branches of government; and has declared support for policies that inevitably make states and individuals more dependent on the whims of the Federal Government, and which at the same time directly threaten Americans’ first amendment rights. 

One of these represents the ideal of political compromise written into the American Constitution by our founding fathers.  The other reflects the image of a would-be tyrant seeking to consolidate power.  Their political backgrounds and the social problems they seem most eager to solve are not my concern here, but rather their attitude toward Americanism.

Before I proceed, let me emphasize again: political ideology is not the question at issue here; rather, the main thing is the willingness to keep or to break the rules that protect American freedom.

I will now give names and specifics to the situation I have described above: 

The advocate for compromise, governmental fair play, and state empowerment is Governor Romney. 

The advocate for polarizing partisanship, consolidation of power, and attacks on first amendment rights is President Obama. 

And, because this characterization of the President is harsh and demands justification, I will demonstrate the truth of it using the example of the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”).

During the heated debates surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there was one issue which was particularly problematic—that of contraception and abortion.  As a matter of conscience, Catholics and many American citizens of other faiths consider abortion and ‘day after’ contraception to be murder.  The individual mandate included in the ACA would force these individuals and organizations connected with their religious institutions to contribute money to provide for abortions.  As a matter of conscience, then, the law would essentially require these individuals to help others murder their children.  Most if not all who read this, regardless of whether they agree with the Catholic position, may consider how they would feel if the government signed an order forcing them to violate their own beliefs on an issue so fundamental to them as would be killing an innocent person.  This law also creates a precedent of arbitrary government control in the operation of American religious institutions.

Despite complete opposition from conservatives in Congress (including a key swing group of pro-life Democrats), Obama put extreme pressure on his party to support the bill.  He finally got enough support to pass the bill by signing an executive order which ostensibly promised that the ACA would not be used to fund abortions or abortive contraception.  However, in January 2012, the Obama administration reversed its position, circumventing Congress with its HHS contraception mandate requiring that all insurance policies include free contraception.  Due to intense opposition to this requirement on the grounds of conscience, an amendment was made that exempted churches but not their affiliated nonprofit organizations.  The Catholic reaction to this ‘compromise’ has been decidedly unfavorable.

After bullying and lying to Congress, President Obama turned to threatening the Supreme Court.  The Court responded by citing the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, where John Marshall notably gave the President what he wanted while undercutting the executive’s power through judicial review.  In his decision on the ACA, Chief Justice Roberts declared:

“We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (p. 6, emphasis added).

He then went on to declare provisions of the ACA to be a tax on the American people, deflating the Obama administration’s arguments to the contrary and reframing the issue squarely as a tax against conscience; or, in other words, as the Federal Government’s ability to redefine Americans’ first amendment rights. 

Now, public and individual health truly is a worthy cause, and President Obama and his colleagues are not wrong or evil for pursuing those objectives.  But they are doing so by using strategies that polarize and alienate the American people, by bullying the other branches of government, and by forcing large segments of the American people to violate their established first amendment conscience rights—on the order of murder, in their minds—in favor of the social cause of the day.  

All Americans need to recognize that this is not just an issue for the Christian faithful, or limited even to religious persons more generally: if the President of the United States has the right to modify law to force religious institutions to fund abortions in violation of their first amendment rights to conscience, then the first amendment rights of all groups are at stake.  This particular president has shown that he is willing to trample these rights, along with the checks and balances designed to protect them, in order to pursue his social objectives.  Thus, as Mike Huckabee said in response to the contraception mandate, “We’re all Catholics now.”

Governor Romney, on the other hand, has shown a willingness and great skill at working with people of opposing ideologies to find actual solutions to problems; has insisted that it is Congress’ job—not the Presidents’—to write laws; and has advocated backing the Federal Government out of issues that are constitutionally left to individuals and the states. 

These are issues central to what it means to be Americans.  Our forefathers fought the revolutionary war over these issues.  I think that we are all grateful that the free men of that generation carried the day.  We have an opportunity now, tomorrow, in our generation, to decide whether we really believe in a system of fair government, protected by checks and balances.

Colleagues of mine in the military have confirmed reports that the gatekeepers of the election process there have been attempting to discourage them from voting in this critical election, and there have been rumors of voter fraud; all of this points to the need for every American citizen with a legitimate vote to cast a ballot, and ensure that, whatever happens in this election, it truly is the will of The People.  President Obama and Governor Romney are not really the ones on trial in this election.  Rather, it is we, The People, as the final masters of our political destiny, who are on trial. 

How the Supreme Court Hosed Obama

The Supreme Court has ruled, and has shared its decision with the people of the United States of America.  How do we fight this between now and November?  I invite you to read on, as guest blogger David Nance sheds some light on the silver lining, and outlines what the next steps should be for America.

You can follow David Nance on Twitter at @DavidBlenNance

The health care ruling may be the worst thing that ever happened to Obama.

With the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday that Obama’s health care law is, in fact, constitutional, many liberals may feel inclined to celebrate the victory; many conservatives are lamenting defeat, licking their wounds, and wondering what to do next.  Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberal Justices in the final decision, will probably be characterized as a traitor.

But, on closer inspection, all of this is not so cut and dry.  President Obama has demonstrated public contempt for due process of law, both in circumventing the Legislature to push his agendas, and in publicly humiliating and bullying the Supreme Court Justices.  He has even gone so far as to warn them not to strike down Obamacare.  The Court knew that merely striking the law down would be offering a band-aid to a problem in need of major surgery. 

In a move taken in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, which gave the President his way while limiting the President’s power (1), the Court has rendered its verdict in a very particular way that actually outlines the most plausible agenda for fighting the health care law—and it has done it in an elegant way that that neither Obama or Congress can touch.  The Supreme Court has taken the issue of health care reform away from political heavyweights and put it right back where it belongs: in the hands of the people.  

The Justices' decision provides Americans with the plan and the tools to resist Obamacare through both vote and civil disobedience. 

First, the Court told us in no uncertain terms what we will have to do to fix the problem.  To quote from Roberts’ official decision:

“We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (emphasis added).

In other words, the Court can’t fix this; Congress and the President are going to do what they want to do, and the only way to stop them is to choose different political leaders. 

Second, the Court’s decision has legally redefined Obamacare, opt-out fees and all, as a tax.  This is inestimably powerful material for conservative rhetoric toward ousting incumbent politicians in November: 

• It literally makes a lie of a major premise on which Obamacare was passed, which was that it would not be a tax on the American people—now, it is a tax, nothing more and nothing less.
• More than just a tax, Obamacare is an unjust, discriminatory tax: it takes money from those who work and gives to those who do not.
• Obamacare is a tax on conscience: it proposes to forcibly and explicitly take money from those who feel that abortion and day-after contraception are murder and gives that money to the very people committing such acts—and opting out merely shifts this taxation to the form of a fine.
• The question of taxation takes America back to its roots: An unhearing King and an unresponsive Parliament imposing taxes on the people, and willing to violate their basic rights of citizenship in order to do it.
• Recall Daniel Webster’s immortal warning—“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Thus, failing or refusing to vote in this election is to submit to unfair, discriminatory taxation without representation.  In light of the Court’s verdict, America can again rally to the 1776 cry of “Down with King George!” 

Third, the Court’s decision enables a simple and straightforward method for engaging in crippling civil disobedience.  The Justices are aware that a number of influential individuals and organizations (including the Catholic Church and leading political thought leaders at some of the Nation’s top universities) have pledged to fight Obamacare to the inclusion of civil disobedience.  By defining Obamacare as a tax, the course of action is clear: simply refuse to pay the tax.  When the government comes to collect the unpaid taxes, class-action lawsuits can be filed on every possible mistake made by the IRS, making the collection of taxes a financial and political nightmare:

If 5% of the US population were join clergy and other leaders in this kind of non-compliance, the Federal Government will quickly find itself at an impasse with three possible outcomes, each of them politically fatal.

• Choose not to enforce the tax—thereby gutting the power of Obamacare and, worse, setting the precedent that Americans can ignore taxes (and possibly other laws) they disapprove of.
• Enforce the law through imprisoning Catholic priests and bishops, leaders of other churches, internationally influential law professors, and other high-profile offenders; and through shutting down businesses, church organizations and their subsidiaries, and other employers who refuse to pay the tax—resulting in increased unemployment, the need for government aid to support the families of those imprisoned, and, ultimately, the kind of heart-wrenching publicity that helped Martin Luther King, Jr. with the battle for civil rights.
• Enforce the law through other forms of sanctions on ideologically-motivated non-payers—flouting First Amendment conscience rights in ways that will be increasingly impossible to pass off as anything but ideological repression.

In other words, the Court has created a lose, lose, lose situation for our current Congress and the Obama administration.  Assuming there is any spark of freedom left amongst conservatives and religious people in America, if this contest of wills reaches that phase, the plan outlined and enabled by Chief Justice Roberts will leave this generation of political leadership broken and disgraced in the eyes of history and the American people.

So, what do we do with this knowledge?

First of all, we need to remember that, on all sides of this debate, there are people.  Obamacare made it as far as it did because it promised—deceptively, perhaps—something that people felt they needed.  The fact that individuals with pre-existing conditions have been denied insurance coverage, for example is problematic; as is the fact that there are many innocent children whose parents cannot afford health care, with insurance or without.  These are the real issues that many currently favoring the law want to address.  For conservatives to win the hearts of fence-sitters, Obamacare must be attacked always with the explicit promise that the American people will work to address those issues in a more appropriate way, and with actions to match that promise.

Second of all, conservatives must weaponize the rhetoric that the Supreme Court has so judiciously gifted to them:

• They must use the language of taxation against conscience and against freedom to rally every possible vote against our current President and Legislature in the November elections—EVERYONE must engage persuasively in this discussion as if his or her liberty is at stake, because it is.
• Where primary elections are still underway, conservatives and also liberals who oppose Obamacare must try to select candidates who will fight to improve the current situation—a Democrat willing to repeal the individual mandate or discriminatory provisions is every bit the ally a Republican or Libertarian would be.

Thirdly, conservatives must recognize that, for those committed to civil disobedience over this cause, there will be severe economic, social, and political reprisals.  Professors, church leaders, and others will likely lose their livelihood and possibly their freedom, and their families will be exposed to subtle or overt acts of terrorism by their opponents.  While this issue is not the sword all conservatives will choose to die on, those not directly engaged in civil disobedience should be conscious of the sacrifice of those for whom it is.  Sympathetic bystanders can aid and abet those in the thick of it through any legal means imaginable.  Doing so will make it much harder for the Government to break the will of the movement and will demonstrate a solidarity among conservatives that will speak with a convincing force more powerful than words. 

If conservatives rally around the plan that Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court have recommended to us, nothing short of an actual coup d'état will have power to force Obamacare upon the people.

No, fellow Americans, the Supreme Court has not betrayed America to its politicians—they’ve saved it from them.  In what I believe is an act of God, the people of the United States once again have the power to decide the outcome of their own fate.

The ball is in our hands. The question is: are we game?

Regardless of your political affiliation, if you love America, please forward this message on to anyone who will read it.

Notes:

¹ The Court has gone back to its own history.  The Court knew that merely striking down the law would likely make little difference.  They remember President Andrew Jackson’s reported reaction when the Supreme Court ruled that the US could not force the Cherokee Indians off of their lands: "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" 

Just as Jackson flouted due process, the Court has seen the same disposition in President Obama, who has derided and belittled the Court’s decisions in public, and even directly warned them not to strike down the health care law—all aside from his consistent efforts to circumvent the cumbersome legislative process to pass many of his initiatives. 

So, instead of taking the President on directly, the Court has taken a different page out of the history book: Marbury v. Madison.  (Lest we miss this connection, Chief Justice Roberts even goes so far as to as to quote directly from that case early on in his official opinion.  See p. 6.)

In Marbury v. Madison, the Court brilliantly declared the President’s use of his executive authority against Mr. Marbury to be illegal, but also found that Mr. Marbury’s suit was illegal under constitutional separation of powers—and in the process, the Court gave itself the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutional boundaries of each branch of government.  In chess terms, the Court gave up a pawn to gain a queen, which it could then use to check the President.

Protecting the Health of Women While Accommodating Religious Liberty...?

So, our friends in the Federal Government decreed that every employer MUST provide insurance that covers FREE birth control to all women as part of their health insurance coverage by August of this year, giving religious affiliated organizations such as hospitals and charities a year's grace period before they must also comply.  The Catholic Church - and many many others of various affiliations - stated that such a mandate is expressly unconstitutional, and easily collected 25,000+ signatures on a petition to overturn the mandate.  My name was on that petition.  Because of my concern thus expressed, I got this carefully-worded letter in my email inbox.  I add my comments in blue:

Protecting the Health of Women While Accommodating Religious Liberty

By Cecilia Muñoz, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

Thank you for using We the People to make your voice heard about the Obama Administration's decision to ensure that women (but not men - how is that fair?) have access to free preventive care with no co-pays, including contraceptive services, no matter where they work.

As background, the Affordable Care Act, which should never have passed, requires insurance companies to cover preventive services, including preventive care for women, without charging a co-pay, starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.  What else did they recommend?  Who else recommended these provisions?

The policies we have proposed exempt churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections. But some religious organizations have raised religious liberty concerns about providing contraception in particular in recent weeks.

Today, President Obama has announced that his Administration will implement this policy in a manner that, according to him, fully accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. As the President said:

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. Where is this study?  How long ago was it conducted?  Who conducted it?  Has it ever been replicated?  What was the sample size and demographics?  No one asked me, so I know for a fact it wasn't "all women."  Out of the many, many women who I know personally, several have never used contraception.  That's more than 1%.  And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it.  Again, tell me about this study.  Also, since when is "struggled to afford it" a valid criterion - especially independent of all other criteria - for getting something provided to a person by tax dollars at no cost to the individual?  So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care. Free. Nothing is free. Whether you’re a teacher, or a small businesswoman, or a nurse, or a janitor, (Ah, the easy-to-pull, well-worn, and ever-emotional Hard Working American card) no woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes (a platitude that does not directly). Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period. (Which is why we are going to take over that right to choose and administrate those decisions for them.) This basic principle is already the law in 28 states across the country. This tells me that the individual States, the 28 in favor of this "basic principle" and the others with different policies, already have this issue firmly under control.

Now, as we move to implement this rule, however, we've been mindful that there's another principle at stake here –- and that's the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution. As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right. In fact, my first job in Chicago was working with Catholic parishes in poor neighborhoods, and my salary was funded by a grant from an arm of the Catholic Church. And I saw that local churches often did more good for a community than a government program ever could, so I know how important the work that faith-based organizations do and how much impact they can have in their communities. A whole paragraph that does nothing to answer questions or show solutions, but only to make you feel better, knowing that the President understand the concerns of the American people.  If you'll forgive the movie reference, "I am a brave President!"

Video of his entire statement is available here.

Here are a few basic facts:

• Under the policy, women have access to preventive care with no co-pay that includes contraceptive services.
• All churches and houses of worship are exempt from the requirement to provide coverage for contraception or refer for contraception.
• If a woman's employer is a religious non-profit organization, such as a charity hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, her insurance company -- not the hospital or charity -- will be required to reach out and provide her contraceptive care free of charge if she chooses to use it.

There are tremendous health benefits for women that come from using contraception. Contraception is a safe and effective way of preventing unintended pregnancies which can be associated with increased health risks, and doctors also prescribe contraception for medical and health reasons, including helping to reduce the risk of some cancers, serious infections and cysts. Yet many women skip contraceptive care because of cost.

President Obama is also committed to preserving religious liberty and he listened to the concerns raised by certain religious organizations and took them seriously.

You can learn more about the policy here.

This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been grappling to find a solution that works for everyone, and the policy announced today has done that. The right to religious liberty will be fully protected, and a law that requires preventive care without co-pays will not discriminate against any woman, anywhere. Here are a few statements from groups involved in the issue:

Catholics United: http://www.catholics-united.org/ This group is not affiliated with the institutional Catholic Church and consistently promotes policies that oppose the official stand of the Catholic Church

President Obama has shown us that he is willing to rise above the partisan fray to deliver an actual policy solution that both meets the health care needs of all employees and respects the religious liberty of Catholic institutions.

Catholic Health Association: http://www.chausa.org At a glance, this group seems to be a legitimate and powerful entity, who seems to have bought the original “Affordable Care Act” (a.k.a. Obamacare) wholesale.

We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.

Planned Parenthood: Their homepage makes it quite evident which side (ie planned or parenthood) their bread is buttered on.

The Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.

NARAL: Their website at www.naral.org says they are “Pro-Choice America.” After searching their website to no avail, I found that this acronym stands for “National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League” on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America

Today's announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women's health.

A short pause here to draw your attention to a significant list of entities who are NOT on this list of fast-acting kudos-givers, who we might expect would support such a law if it were actually good for us:

·         Physicians

·         Any professional medical group

·         Insurance Companies

·         The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

·         Official religious organizations

·         Official atheist organizations

·         Parent Groups

·         Women’s Rights Organizations

·         Researchers

·         Economists

·         State Governments

Thank you again for participating in the We the People platform to make your voice heard on this important issue.

Check out this response on We the People.

Stay Connected

Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.

Want to Make Your Voice Heard in Washington?  Here are some resources to get you started:

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/delayed_send

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/32438-H-R-459-Federal-Reserve-Transparency-Act-of-2011

http://readthebill.org/rushed/

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.propublica.org/

What does this mean to you?

The Federal Government has decreed that every business that offers insurance to their employees must thereby pay for women there employed to have free access to birth control.  The Catholic Church has officially stated that they will not comply.  What does this issue mean to you?

Proposed Law Strikes Directly at the Family Unit

Please follow this link and, after you have followed the hyperlinks at the end and done your civic duty to voice your opinion on the proposed legislation, comment here as we discuss the implications and what steps we might try next:

http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/childrens-rights-create-confusion-over-the-role-of-parent/#comments

The Outcome of One Battle Does Not Define the War

The purpose of this blog is to encourage discussion of current events, policies, legislation, and other such happenings that affect the American way of life; and provide a forum for making Americans' voices heard where it counts. It is for people who want to understand the truth about the issues and work together to find creative, rational solutions to the problems we face. It is our hope that, as well as adults, young people will feel welcome to participate. With this in mind, please keep all postings and comments clean, and be considerate to all who wish to participate in this forum. Thank you for your interest in protecting the people of this nation and making it a better place for all of us.