<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>If Bush Did It &#187; health</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ifbushdidit.com/tag/health/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com</link>
	<description>We would still be hearing about it!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:21:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama shift seeks to defuse birth-control fight 
    (Reuters)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obama-shift-seeks-to-defuse-birth-control-fight-reuters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obama-shift-seeks-to-defuse-birth-control-fight-reuters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>stuartbramhall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abrupt-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aimed-at-quelling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[announced-on-friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[birth-control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fall-on-insurers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer-free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shift-aimed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-onus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obama-shift-seeks-to-defuse-birth-control-fight-reuters/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reuters - President Barack Obama, in an abrupt policy shift aimed at quelling an election-year firestorm, announced on Friday that religious employers would not be required to offer free birth control to workers and the onus would instead fall on insurers.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obama-shift-seeks-to-defuse-birth-control-fight-reuters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Birth Control Backtrack an Interesting Compromise 
    (ContributorNetwork)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obamas-birth-control-backtrack-an-interesting-compromise-contributornetwork/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obamas-birth-control-backtrack-an-interesting-compromise-contributornetwork/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>RomieObriant368</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[birth-control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer-free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[requirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reuters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-health]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obamas-birth-control-backtrack-an-interesting-compromise-contributornetwork/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY &#124; According to Reuters, President Barack Obama today announced he was backtracking on the health care rule that would require religious employers to offer free birth control to their employees. Instead, the requirement would fall onto the insurance companies to pay for these services. Which means, of course, that the controversy isn't over.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/10/obamas-birth-control-backtrack-an-interesting-compromise-contributornetwork/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Feds require consumer-friendly health plan briefs 
    (AP)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/feds-require-consumer-friendly-health-plan-briefs-ap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/feds-require-consumer-friendly-health-plan-briefs-ap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>petreewild969</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health-insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slightest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slightest-clue]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/feds-require-consumer-friendly-health-plan-briefs-ap/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AP - Don't have the slightest clue what your health insurance covers?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/feds-require-consumer-friendly-health-plan-briefs-ap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senior U.S. Catholic cites Obama &quot;promises&quot; on birth control 
    (Reuters)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/senior-u-s-catholic-cites-obama-promises-on-birth-control-reuters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/senior-u-s-catholic-cites-obama-promises-on-birth-control-reuters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DUFFYAPRIL35</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cover-birth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health-insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[november-as-dolan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pressed-the-church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roman-catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[said-on-thursday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thursday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[timothy-dolan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/senior-u-s-catholic-cites-obama-promises-on-birth-control-reuters/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reuters - Timothy Dolan, a senior U.S. Roman Catholic leader, said on Thursday President Barack Obama "gave me promises" during a White House meeting in November as Dolan pressed the Church's criticism of a new Obama administration rule requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/09/senior-u-s-catholic-cites-obama-promises-on-birth-control-reuters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Super PAC-men: Obama’s bundlers gone wild!</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/08/super-pac-men-obamas-bundlers-gone-wild/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/08/super-pac-men-obamas-bundlers-gone-wild/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>OgaldezParthemer601</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012-campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public-health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/08/super-pac-men-obamas-bundlers-gone-wild/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Super PAC-men: Obama&#8217;s bundlers gone wild! by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2012 The White House didn&#8217;t blow a dog whistle for deep-pocketed liberal donors on Monday. No, the administration whipped out a supersized vuvuzela. Blaring message: Let loose the campaign finance-bundling hounds of super PAC war! President Obama&#8217;s campaign manager, Jim Messina, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations before assuming 2012 re-election duties, announced the super PAC super-flip-flop in a mass e-mail to supporters and a blog post published on the left-wing Huffington Post website. In a related conference call to major campaign finance bundlers, Messina encouraged these high-dollar donors to start funding Priorities USA Action. That&#8217;s the Democratic super PAC founded by former White House staffers Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney. Super PACs and campaigns are barred from coordinating with each other. Nevertheless, Messina said that &#8220;senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events.&#8221; Of course, they &#8220;won&#8217;t be soliciting contributions.&#8221; Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. This brazen about-face for Team Obama is a goldmine of campaign lies, contortions and epic hypocrisy. Let us count the ways. &#8211; A bundle of contradictions. &#8220;Bundling&#8221; is the rustling up of aggregate contributions from friends, business associates and employees, a practice to circumvent individual donation limits that Obama has long condemned. When he announced his presidential intentions in 2007, candidate Obama decried &#8220;the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who&#8217;ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.&#8221; He indignantly singled out &#8220;the best bundlers&#8221; who get the &#8220;greatest access&#8221; to power. Last week, Obama acknowledged raising at least $74 million through his team of big-time bundlers who have been showered with access, tax dollars and plum patronage positions. This elite group of Hollywood celebrities (such as open-borders actress Eva Longoria), political cronies (such as Chicago bagman Louis &#8220;The Vacuum&#8221; Susman) and politically correct businessmen (such as bankrupt Solyndra investor George Kaiser) now totals a whopping 445 gold-card members. &#8211; The roar of the revolving door. In his Monday announcement, Messina bragged about how the White House has enacted &#8220;sweeping&#8221; reforms to &#8220;close the revolving door between government and lobbyists.&#8221; In truth, the administration has widened the carousel and removed the brakes. The Obama-cheerleading Fishwrap of Record (The New York Times) itself identified at least 15 bundlers &#8220;involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies.&#8221; Moreover, &#8220;at least 68 of 350 Obama bundlers for the 2012 election or their spouses have served in the administration in some capacity; at least 250 of the bundlers visited the White House, and another 30 have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so in the future,&#8221; according to a recent iWatch News report. Several first-time 2012 bundlers already have snagged administration posts: &#8211; Norma Lee Funger, of Potomac, Md., who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, was appointed last month to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. &#8211; Glenn S. Gerstell, of Washington, D.C., who bundled the same amount, was appointed to the National Infrastructure Advisory Commission last fall. &#8211; Richard Binder, of Bethesda, Md., another $50,000 to $100,000 bundler, was appointed to the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health last spring. And note: The most transparent administration ever still refuses to disclose recusal orders involving the nearly 100 lobbyists and ex-lobbyists on its payroll. &#8211; Super PAC super-hypocrisy. &#8220;Super PACs&#8221; are federal political action committees that only make independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, candidates. Their birth and growth were fueled indirectly by the Supreme Court&#8217;s Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling in 2010. The decision overturned severe campaign finance restrictions that essentially criminalized certain forms of political speech. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it during oral arguments: &#8220;We don&#8217;t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.&#8221; Until this week, the Obama administration vehemently condemned the Citizens United decision and vowed to eschew super PACs. The entities are a &#8220;threat to our democracy,&#8221; Obama railed two years ago. The ruling would &#8220;open the floodgates for special interests,&#8221; he warned. And last July, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt kept talking the anti-super PAC talk. &#8220;Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs,&#8221; he asserted. Now? President Obama and his wife won&#8217;t fundraise for the democracy-undermining super PACs. But countless other Cabinet members and advisers, partying with Obama bundlers gone wild, will. In 2007, Obama lambasted rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for criticizing independent expenditures while raking in big PAC bucks: &#8220;So you can&#8217;t say yesterday you don&#8217;t believe in them, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can&#8217;t just talk the talk.&#8221; Obama 2012 campaign motto: Empty talk? Yes, we can! ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/08/super-pac-men-obamas-bundlers-gone-wild/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama risks Catholic vote with birth-control mandate 
    (Reuters)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/07/obama-risks-catholic-vote-with-birth-control-mandate-reuters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/07/obama-risks-catholic-vote-with-birth-control-mandate-reuters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MarkBeestler</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[believes-women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[birth-control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casillas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[routinely-prescribes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stern-warning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/07/obama-risks-catholic-vote-with-birth-control-mandate-reuters/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reuters - Dr. Joe Casillas, an obstetrician in Southern California, routinely prescribes birth control for his patients. Though he's a practicing Catholic, he doesn't follow his church's stern warning that contraception is a sin. He believes women should have access.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/07/obama-risks-catholic-vote-with-birth-control-mandate-reuters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘She Was Starting to Decompose’: Woman Charged in Death of Morbidly Obese Sister</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/05/she-was-starting-to-decompose-woman-charged-in-death-of-morbidly-obese-sister/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/05/she-was-starting-to-decompose-woman-charged-in-death-of-morbidly-obese-sister/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron-negangard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chair-at-least]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dearborn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frieberger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holdcraft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury-on-friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recliner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spent-the-last]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[window]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/05/she-was-starting-to-decompose-woman-charged-in-death-of-morbidly-obese-sister/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[caption id="attachment_236998" align="alignleft" width="329" caption="Priscilla Frieberger was still alive when she began decomposing in this recliner chair after sitting in it for three weeks. (Image source: WKRC-TV)"] [/caption] An Indiana woman has been charged in the death of her sister, a morbidly obese 61-year-old who was found decomposing in the chair she had not left for three weeks. Priscilla Frieberger was still alive in the Dearborn County, Indiana home she shared with her sister when emergency crews found her in October, her skin sticking to the brown cloth recliner chair where she spent the last weeks of her life, sitting in her own waste. Vickie Holdcraft, 58, called 911 when her sister began having trouble breathing. In a recording of the 911 call, Holdcraft is heard telling the operator crews will have to go around to the back of the house to get inside. That's because the home could have been something out of the TV show "Hoarders," prosecutor Aaron Negangard told Cincinnati CBS affiliate WKRC-TV . "There was stuff stacked up, in parts to the ceiling," Negangard told the station. "The bedroom where the victim was located was full of stuff. The only way to get her out was through a window, they broke out the window, moved ambulance to the window, then got her out." Frieberger was in the recliner, not because she was obese, but because her skin was stuck to it, WKRC reported. "She'd been in this chair at least three weeks, and she was starting to decompose. She had several parts of the body in a state of decomposition especially posterior where she was sitting.  There was an odor of decomposing flesh in the room," Negangard said. Frieberger later died of pneumonia and a blood infection. A grand jury on Friday indicted Holdcraft on charges of reckless homicide, neglect and perjury and a warrant was issued for her arrest. According to WKRC, Frieberger worked for the county auditor's office for 30 years before retiring in 2010. Holdcraft works for the health department.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/05/she-was-starting-to-decompose-woman-charged-in-death-of-morbidly-obese-sister/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Military Silences Catholic Chaplains From Speaking out Against Obama Admin Ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/04/u-s-military-silences-catholic-chaplains-from-speaking-out-against-obama-admin-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/04/u-s-military-silences-catholic-chaplains-from-speaking-out-against-obama-admin-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exercise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free-speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/04/u-s-military-silences-catholic-chaplains-from-speaking-out-against-obama-admin-ruling/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Scroll down for an update to this story: Last Sunday, Catholic priests across the country read an open letter to their parishioners. The letter condemned the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees' health-care coverage. The letter argued that the faithful could not and must not in good conscience comply with the HHS’ “unjust law.” However, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. military were "forbidden" from reading this letter. After Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains, sent out the letter to be read at Sunday masses, the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication "forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief,” Business Insider 's Michael Dougherty reports. Military officials felt that "the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting," according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online , and the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. "Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass," Lopez writes. Despite these instructions, some chaplains read the letter anyway. Business Insider reports: More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. Some reasoned that because the letter was not "politically driven," and that it only sought to reaffirm Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and the "sanctity of life," they would risk punishment and disobey instructions, one source involved told The Blaze. Anticipating repercussions for reading the letter, a confidential letter was sent to the chaplains instructing them to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment (via BI): The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq….he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge. Here is the Archdiocese for Military Services account of what happened regarding the letter, its public reading, and a newly-edited, government-approved version to be released (via National Review Online ): On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit.  The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel. Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter.  Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience. The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service. Update : The decision to forbid the chaplains from reading the letter is an odd one. This is not the first time that the question of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the military has been brought up. In fact, the Pentagon was once sued by The Becket Fund for having issued gag orders against a Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi for being vocal supporters of H.R. 1122 (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997). The Becket Fund argued in court that the gag order "violated their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et . seq ," according to Free Preach . The court agreed with The Becket Fund that the gag order was unconstitutional: What we have here is the government's attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains' free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. 962 F. Supp. at 165. Free Preach writes: In particular, the court rejected all of the arguments advanced by the government to support their censorship of speech from the pulpit. For example, the government argued that it was not an important part of the plaintiffs' religion to urge their congregations to contact Congress about particular moral or political issues. The court soundly rejected that argument, holding that it was not the role of the government "to determine whether encouraging parishioners to contact Congress [about a particular issue like] the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is an 'important component' of the [plaintiffs'] faiths." Id . at 161. Moreover, the court held that "[e]ncouraging parishioners to contact Congress" about legislation addressing moral issues related to religious faith "appears to be no less important to the [plaintiffs' faith] than other religiously-motivated activity courts have held to be important enough to a religion such that its prohibition amounts to a substantial burden." Id . The government then argued that the chaplains' contemplated speech was "not religious" but merely "political." The court rejected this argument also, holding that "it is not the role of this Court to draw fine distinctions between degrees of religious speech and to hold that religious speech is protected but religious speech with so-called political overtones is not." Id . at 164. Finally, the court held that any interests advanced by the government for their censorship policy were "outweighed by the . . . chaplains' right to autonomy in determining the religious content of their sermons." Id . at 162. It is imperative to note that these same interests would likely be asserted by the government in the private freedom-to-preach context as well, and similar reasoning to reject such would apply. To summarize the holding: The State cannot interfere with the right of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit on political issues, even if those ministers are in the military [emphasis added]. Now, all that being said, and the legal and constitutional precedent having been set, the question is this: on what grounds did the U.S. military have right to forbid those chaplains from reading an open letter from the Archbishop during Sunday Mass? This is a breaking story. Updates will be added as they become available. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/04/u-s-military-silences-catholic-chaplains-from-speaking-out-against-obama-admin-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Last Republican?</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HansonLorna33</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest. -- Nietzsche So it seems it will be Mitt. And good thing he won't be offering his main rival the second spot on the ticket. "Mitt &#038; Newt" sounds like the name of a comedy act or a network sitcom. Not right for something epic or tragic. Which is to say… not right for the times. Not even close. When you think about this election -- and you must, there is no escaping it -- you wonder if it is not just the same old, same old. Is this just another "most important election of our lifetimes," or something, actually, a little more important than that? Is it business as usual or are we entering a pre-revolutionary phase of history when, soon, nothing will be the same again? Who knows? But to ask the question is to point out how unfit Mr. Romney may be to lead during these times. To begin with, he has never given any indication that he even understands, or appreciates, the mood of these days. You can listen to Mr. Romney debate or speak for hours (some have, poor souls) and never get the feeling that he senses the fear, the uncertainty, and the outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them, are not merely frightened; they are terrified. Mr. Romney's message of assurance? "I'll fix things. Trust me, I'm a businessman." An example of Mitts's insouciance would be that line about how the health care mandate isn't something to "get angry about." Nah. Geeze, man. Chill. And on the existential (sorry, only word that will do) choices about just how much government the nation can afford and how much debt it can endure (or visa versa), Romney has never exhibited the slightest sign that he appreciates what a big deal it is. Nothing, he seems to believe, to get your knickers in a twist over. He'll fix it. He's a businessman. Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall. If he loses, those people who believed devoutly that the times require something more than a standard-issue Republican for whom all things political are negotiable and to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, "Never again." They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, "I could work with Teddy Kennedy." If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney wins, what then? Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business, entitlements will reform themselves, the deficit will shrivel on its own accord, and Leviathan will shrink to a size where it can be domesticated and housebroken? Has Mr. Romney demonstrated, ever, any convictions regarding the proper size and the rightful powers of the government? Does anyone believe he shares the fear millions feel about government power and their angry indignation at its arrogance and overreach? His overriding sentiment about government seems to be that it would be nice if he were in charge of it … so it would be run (all together now) like a business. In short, does anyone think that Romney will ride into Washington next January determined to tame the town… or die trying? Mr. Romney's aim will almost surely be to take Washington on its own terms and try to "make it work." Whatever anti-Washington sentiments he might express during the campaign, the odds are they will be discarded and forgotten within weeks of his taking the oath of office in a replay of George H. W. Bush and "read my lips." The people who voted for Romney in the belief that he would take on Washington will be patronizingly told by the political class that "Governing is not the same as campaigning." "No stuff, Sherlock," the betrayed will say. "Governing is a lot more important and a lot tougher and the guys like Bush, Dole, McCain, the other Bush and, now, Romney never understood that. It is they who govern as though they were campaigning for the approval of Washington and the political class. "We never thought that electing them was the whole point and that if, afterwards, you got 'Big Government Conservatism' or 'Compassionate Conservatism,' it was no big deal because, praise Jesus, the Republicans were in charge. We always thought that the governing would be the hard part. Look how tough it was to get rid of ethanol subsidies. It is you who are confused." The betrayed will leave if Romney makes it his mission to manage his way to a second term. He'll have an easier path, this time, getting the nomination. But he will likely be the last Republican.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Total Recall</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ggallin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wisconsin, the birthplace of the American socialist movement and the first state to allow public employees to unionize, has a blunt conservative governor named Scott Walker who has become a familiar face in the national spotlight. Walker, who signed Republican-backed legislation last year to eliminate most public sector unions' abilities to collectively bargain while requiring employees to start contributing to their pensions (5.8% of their salaries, on average) and double their health care premium (12.4% of their salaries), has balanced a budget that started with a $3.6 billion deficit. So far, the modest changes in state law are working. For example, Walker's reforms allow schools to take private bids on health care insurance, saving schools hundreds of dollars per pupil. In addition, school districts have been able to implement performance-based payment systems, which has saved hundreds of teachers from being laid off. For his efforts, Walker now faces a recall effort. Supporters recently filed more than 1 million signatures (twice as many as required). Walker will now be forced to defend himself in a special election. According to Democratic and Republican Party officials, the spending on the recall by both sides is expected to total $100 million. That does not include $9 million in processing and software costs to taxpayers, according to estimates from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the agency tasked with verifying petitions. This week, the MacIver Institute informs TAS , the agency failed to fulfill its promise to post the signed petitions online for inspection, which will only encourage additional expensive legal battles. Thanks to Wisconsin law that allows political committees to raise unlimited funds for recall campaigns, Walker last month added an impressive $5.1 million added to a $12 war chest built up since January of last year. A notable $500,000 donor is Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, a conservative activist and major funder of 527s, such as American Crossroads and the Club for Growth. Recalls in Wisconsin have been permitted since 1926, but only four were held until last year. In an August special election, Democrats and outside union groups spent $44 million trying to recall six state senators. They succeeded only in removing two of them, and thus failed to win back a majority in the state senate. Now, with labor unions making it a high priority to spend heavily in Wisconsin, Democratic consultants are concerned about using so many resources just months before the 2012 general election. Gov. Walker, seeing the political challenges ahead, is proposing a major income tax cut, but he has backed off supporting right-to-work legislation of the sort that has just passed in Indiana. His approval number is at 51% (higher than President Obama's 47% in Wisconsin), and Democrats are yet to find a strong, well-known candidate to challenge him. Former Senator Russ Feingold was the most popular name floated as a potential opponent, but he is not interested. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk announced her candidacy in mid-January, but has a record of defeat and extreme-left views. Likely candidates Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and former Rep. David Obey, according to a recent Marquette Law School poll, trail Walker 50-44 and 49-43 percent, respectively. And State Senator Tim Cullen, a candidate who's won the backing of the increasingly RINO-ish Republican Senate candidate, former Governor Tommy Thompson, also trails 50-40. Walker faces an additional problem: a widening corruption investigation stemming from his tenure as Milwaukee County executive, which has led to the arrest of some of his former top aides. Although Walker himself is not under suspicion, former deputy chief of staff Tim Russell faces embezzlement charges involving more than $21,000 from a nonprofit Walker asked him to run. During the investigation, Russell's domestic partner Brian Pierick, who has donated $250 to Walker, was charged with a felony child enticement after seized phones and computers showed him trying to lure young children into his van. In addition, prosecutors have charged former aid Kevin Kavanaugh with stealing $43,232 in donations while serving as treasurer of the local Military Order of the Purple Heart. Democrats will certainly make political hay as more details emerge from the investigation that is being led Milwaukee County district attorney John Chistholm, a Democrat. It remains to be seen how badly the corruption investigation will hurt Walker's chances. But it is clear that the outcome of recall election will set the tone for the rest of the country as states continue to wrestle with the interests of unions and serious fiscal crises.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

