Print Page - Huckabee: 'We are all Catholics now'

Catholics, Evangelicals May Coordinate on Religious Freedom Event This Summer

The U.S. Catholic Church will hold an event this summer called "Fortnight for Freedom" to bring attention to religious freedom issues. The Christian Post has learned that discussions are underway to include evangelical organizations with these events. Evangelical organizations have expressed solidarity with Catholic leaders who oppose the Obama administration's birth control mandate, which, they argue, is a religious freedom issue.
In separate interviews, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokesperson for the USCCB, and Galen Carey, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), both confirmed that discussions have taken place on how evangelicals might coordinate events with Catholics for "Fortnight for Freedom," but nothing has been finalized.

The Catholic bishops "have invited us to join them," Carey said Tuesday. "There have been discussions, we're not exactly sure what form that might take, but we certainly have expressed our solidarity with Catholics on [the religious freedom] issue."

"Fortnight for Freedom" will take place for two weeks this summer and end on the Fourth of July holiday.

"Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty," a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) press release explained.

The event will open with a special June 21 Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption, Baltimore, Md., and end with a nationally televised July 4 Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, D.C.
On Monday, 43 Catholic agencies sued the federal government over the birth control mandate arguing that it violates their religious freedom. Catholic doctrine forbids contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs.

Colorado Christian University, an evangelical institution, also filed suit last fall, arguing that requiring coverage for abortifacient drugs, such as Plan B or the "morning after pill," violates their religious conscience because they oppose the use of these drugs.

The mandate, announced in January, would require employers to cover contraception, sterilization and some abortifacient drugs in their health insurance plans. There is a religious exemption, but the exemption is so narrow that most religious groups would not qualify.

Carey noted that the NAE is involved with several religious freedom advocacy groups that also include the USCCB, and they have "talked together quite a bit" over the last several months because of the birth control mandate.

The NAE has not joined in any of the lawsuits, but it may file an Amicus, or "friend of the court," brief in the future to show their support for the Catholic position.

Evangelicals generally have a different view on contraception, Carey explained, "but the question of forcing religious groups to do something they think is wrong -- we're absolutely opposed to that."

"Fortnight for Freedom" was planned long before the birth control mandate, Walsh explained Monday, to bring attention to religious freedom issues at home and abroad, but the mandate will now become one area of focus during the event.

The birth control mandate "just proves the point we're making," Walsh said. "We fight for religious freedom in other countries, we certainly ought to have it in our own."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholics-evangelicals-may-coordinate-on-religious-freedom-event-this-summer-75507/

Federal judge dismisses contraception lawsuits

A federal judge has dismissed a challenge by seven states to the requirement in President Obama's health care law that employers must provide contraception coverage to their workers.

U.S. District Judge Warren K. Urbom said the plaintiffs failed to show that a religious exemption added by the Obama administration wouldn't apply to them, ruling that they had no standing to challenge the mandate.

"In short, the individual plaintiffs have not shown that their current health plans will be required to cover contraception-related services under the rule, and therefore their claims must be dismissed," Judge Urbom said in the ruling.

The Affordable Care Act requires employers who provide health insurance plans to cover certain benefits deemed "essential" without charging an extra co-pay.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced that list would include all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraception, inciting a firestorm of protests from Catholic and other religious groups—even though Mr. Obama later announced that religious hospitals, charities and schools would be exempted.

The lawsuit was filed by seven Republican attorneys general from Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas, and a number of other plaintiffs including three Nebraska-based employers affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Similar challenges filed by a number of religious colleges and organizations are still pending in other federal courts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/17/federal-judge-dismisses-contraception-lawsuits/

These are catholics

Police stop prayers outside White House
But protesters return, willing to face jail for religious freedom

Dozens of people have already been arrested over the weekend for kneeling and praying in front of the White House.

ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”

The group claims Acts 5:29 – “But Peter and the Apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” – as their basis for protesting the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services mandate requiring employer-provided health insurance cover birth control measures.

“Obamacare will force institutions, churches and individuals to purchase abortion-inducing drugs and pay for sterilization and abortion in direct opposition to their beliefs, conscience and historic teachings of the Church,” says the group. “With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming Obamacare, the future of religious freedom in America is at risk and in grave danger of being entirely wiped out.”

On Saturday afternoon, 22 members of the group knelt on the sidewalk in prayer and were arrested by Capitol Police, with the prayer rally (and possible arrests) planned to continue through Oct. 2.

The group says that the only basis for their arrest is that the sidewalk in front of the White House is a “restricted zone” for free speech.

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life told WND, “We have stood up for life and religious freedom in hundreds of cities. Today we do so at the president’s house. I am delighted to be here.”

The group says that the president is “dictating to Christians how they should live their faith” and that they are taking a stand, while risking arrest for doing so.

Bryan Kemper, director of youth outreach at Priests for Life, told WND that he was arrested on Saturday afternoon for kneeling on the sidewalk near the White House while holding a sign that said, “Stand Up for Religious Freedom.”

“I am here today as a father of seven children who is willing to lose my freedom to protect my children’s future freedom,” he told WND. “I was arrested yesterday when I knelt and prayed holding a sign for religious freedom, and I will kneel and pray again today, risking arrest again.”

He told WND that this issue is vital for all American’s to understand.

“We must take this stand now, or we will have no freedom to do so tomorrow,” he said. “I will obey God rather than man.”

He finished, “The HHS mandate violates God’s law and forces us to sin, and I will not comply.”

Brandi Swindell, National Director of Generation Life, a pro-life group dedicated to mobilizing activists, students, artists, musicians and young professionals to end abortion and spread the message of sexual integrity, told WND that she had a “divine appointment” in Washington today.

“Three of us chose to attend church at St. John’s this morning,” Swindell said, “and at the last minute found out that Kathleen Sebelius, the architect of the HHS Mandate was holding an adult forum between services.”

Swindell told WND that she got the secretary’s attention, and in front of a packed auditorium asked her, “Why are you forcing the American people to pay for abortion-inducing drugs that harm women? It’s a severe violation of religious freedom.”

The secretary ignored the question and left the stage.

Video of the exchange, and the critical reaction of other church attendees, can be seen below:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/d-c-police-stop-prayers-outside-white-house/

Obviously, this news story is from last year. But Huckabee is really showing his Jesuit-ical side now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57485228-503544/chick-fil-a-kiss-in-gets-a-pass-from-huckabee/

By Stephanie Condon /
CBS News/ August 2, 2012, 10:17 AM
Chick-fil-A "kiss in" gets a pass from Huckabee

(CBS News) Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who led Wednesday's show of support for Chick-fil-A and its conservative ties, said Thursday morning he has no problem with gay rights supporters organizing a counter-protest for Friday.

"That's America," Huckabee said on Fox News Thursday morning. "As long as they're orderly. As long as they don't disrupt the flow of customers and traffic."

Huckabee on Wednesday led "Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day," during which conservatives ate at the fast food chain to show support for its President and COO Dan Cathy, who has unapologetically voiced his opposition to same-sex marriage. Chick-fil-A's charitable arm has a history of donating to conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriage.

On Friday, gay rights groups like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) are promoting National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A's across the country.

Activist Carly McGehee told GLAAD she was inspired to call for the "kiss in" because an economic boycott of Chick-fil-A didn't go far enough.

"Change will not come if we are sitting at home behind closed doors," she said. "We need to show not just the Chick-fil-a company, but the rest of the country that our numbers are great. By participating in the kiss in, thousands of people will get out of the house and show their support for LGBT equality."

On Fox, Huckabee said, "If they believe that this will help their cause - to put people of the same sex kissing each other in front of families - if they believe that will encourage people to be more sympathetic, then more power to them."

Watch House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday tell reporters that she believes in "freedom of expression" for both sides. She noted, however, "I'm a Kentucky Fried Chicken fan."

Quote

"We need to show not just the Chick-fil-a company, but the rest of the country that our numbers are great.

Well that's a load of bull, and proof again that the gay lobby outright lies to further their wicked agenda. Actual numbers say the gay population is about 6-8%. Even the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimate 3-8%.

So how is it that a group comprising less than 10% of the population is making such a stink? How is it they are getting such attention being so small a group? No way should such a small group should get any kind of rights protection any more than any other citizen.

Now this is coming from Gallup, which is a worldly polling group, so I suspect their numbers are pretty close, maybe even inflated a tad. They say...

Quote

October 8, 2002
What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?
by Jennifer Robison, Contributing Editor

In his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey shocked the world by announcing that 10% of the male population is gay. A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher. But when Gallup asked Americans for their best estimate of the American gay and lesbian population, the results made all the figures mentioned above look conservative.

Every Fifth Person -- at Least

In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual. It should be pointed out, too, that many Americans (at least one in six) could not give an estimate.

Male respondents tend to give lower estimates of both the male and female homosexual population than female respondents do. The average estimates among male respondents are that 16% of men and 21% of women are homosexual. Among female respondents, the average estimates are that 26% of men and 23% of women are homosexual. Somewhat interestingly, both sexes believe there are more homosexuals in the opposite sex than in their own sex.

Portrayals in Pop Culture

Before the 1980s, the few representations of homosexuality in popular culture tended to consist of potentially dangerous social deviants (think Norman Bates in Psycho). Since then, however, the portrayal of gay characters in pop culture have become far more numerous and mostly positive. That growing representation may have spurred growing acceptance -- and inflated population estimates. In the last 10 years, the number of Americans saying they feel homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle has gone from 38% (June 1992) to 51% (May 2002).

"Seeing ourselves reflected positively encourages gay people to come out," said Cathy Renna, news media director for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). "And when people know real gay men and lesbians it increases their level of understanding and acceptance." If you doubt that Ellen, Rosie and others have had an effect on Americans' acceptance of homosexuality, consider this -- MTV and Showtime are about to launch a cable channel directed at the homosexual market. They estimate that gays and lesbians make up 6.5% of television's audience.

Key Points

Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.

*Results based on telephone interviews with 489 (for those estimating percentages of lesbian women) and 518 (for those estimating percentages of gay men) conducted May 6-9, 2002. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx)

A new plan for birth control coverage

The Obama administration proposes that employees of some religiously affiliated workplaces get contraceptive coverage through a separate, private insurance policy at no cost.

The Obama administration, trying to defuse one of the most contentious issues in its healthcare law, proposed Friday a new way to shield religiously affiliated organizations, such as hospitals and universities, from having to provide contraceptive coverage directly to their employees.

Instead, the employees would obtain coverage through a separate, private insurance policy at no cost.

The proposed rule also reaffirms that churches and other houses of worship themselves are exempt from the contraceptive mandate in Obama's healthcare overhaul, and makes it easier for institutions to show that they qualify for the exemption.

For-profit businesses with more than 50 employees will still be required to provide health coverage that includes contraceptive benefits, even if the employer has moral objections to such benefits.

The Obama administration's efforts to balance religious objections to contraception with support among public health advocates for broader access to such services has proven one of the most delicate tasks of implementing the Affordable Care Act. The law requires health plans to cover a host of preventive services without any cost-sharing for patients, such as cancer screenings and physicals. Also included are FDA-approved contraceptives for women, including emergency contraceptive pills.

That has generated controversy almost from the moment the president signed the legislation in 2010. The contraceptive mandate is at the center of numerous lawsuits challenging the law for impeding religious freedoms. Federal judges have split on the issue.

It was unclear Friday how much the administration's latest effort would quiet the battle.

rest: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insurance-contraceptives-20130202,0,680698.story

4/23/13
Catholic Church Withdraws Subpoena to Obama on Birth Control

Scaling down a legal fight with the White House, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has agreed to drop a request for documents about the government's requirement of insurance coverage for birth control, a court filing on Monday said.

The archdiocese sent a subpoena to President Barack Obama's administration in February asking for documents from White House staff, including Obama himself, for use in a church lawsuit against the contraception mandate.

Citing the burden involved and calling a subpoena of the president's office inappropriate, the White House asked a federal judge to toss out the subpoena on April 4.

A notice filed in U.S. District Court in Washington late on Monday said the archdiocese agreed to withdraw its subpoena. It did not say why.

A lawyer for the archdiocese declined to comment on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, which represented the White House in court, had no immediate comment.

The archdiocese is continuing its lawsuit in Brooklyn federal court challenging the Obama administration's health policy requirement that employers generally include coverage of birth control in health insurance plans they offer workers.

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is sinful because it violates natural law.

Part of the 2010 healthcare law championed by Obama and congressional Democrats, the birth control mandate has some exceptions for religious employers but the New York archdiocese said it expected to incur nearly $200 million each year in penalties if it refuses to comply.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/catholic-church-withdraws-subpoena/2013/04/23/id/500982#ixzz2RLYBsW8t
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Not saying the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did the wrong thing or anything - but nonetheless you can bet this is going to be used as a lightning rod political issue to attempt to further unite Churchianity and Catholics. It seems like a lot of these "faith-based" religious groups owning these businesses are Catholic.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/dc-circuit-court-strikes-down-obamacare-mandate-108221/
11/6/13
DC Circuit Court Strikes Down Obamacare Mandate

On November 1, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Gilardi v. HHS ruling against the controversial "birth control mandate" instituted under Obamacare. People of faith from around the nation have waited for an answer on this question, with nearly 75 similar cases pending in federal courts. While this decision is a major victory for religious liberty, the issue will likely face another round at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Under the Affordable Care Act, employer-paid health insurance plans (for companies with over 50 workers) must offer free "preventive care" which subsequent guidelines define as "all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider."

The plaintiffs in the case were brothers Francis and Philip Gilardi, owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, who have nearly 400 employees. The brothers filed suit on the basis that Obamacare's contraceptive mandate obstructs their right of free exercise as protected by the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in that the mandate conflicts with their Catholic faith.

The Court was asked to determine whether or not the birth control mandate could violate the free-exercise rights of the business owners, given that the company, not the individual brothers, was required to provide the employee benefits. In a 2-1 decision, the Court held that the mandate can and does impede the religious liberties of the business owners when the business is closely held.

The opinion, authored by Alabama native Judge Janice Rogers Brown, offered a scathing response to the "troubling" and "sketchy" arguments set forth by the U.S. Justice Department. The government's key claim was that the religious beliefs of the Gilardi brothers were not substantially burdened because religious freedom is an individual right and cannot be enjoyed by corporations. That is, the government believes that the business owners forfeited their First Amendment and statutory rights of free exercise by opting for incorporation. In response, the Court found that "approving and endorsing the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their employer-provided plans" is a "cognizable burden on free exercise" and a substantial one, given the looming $14 million penalty faced by businesses that do not follow the law.

The Justice Department furthered argued that providing contraception should be considered by the Court as a "compelling government interest" and should survive the Court's strict scrutiny into whether the government's interference with religious liberty was warranted. The government reasoned that the mandate was necessary to "safeguard the public health," "avert negative consequences for the woman and developing fetus," and protect "a woman's compelling interest in autonomy."

Pronouncing the Justice Department's arguments "nebulous" and "unconvincing," Judge Brown concluded, "it is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right – whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy – can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman's procreative practices."

There are three critical takeaways from this decision. First, the Department of Justice has demonstrated once again that in its "representation" of the citizens of the United States, it is willing to make radical arguments in the defense of policies that trample the rights protected by the Constitution. Second, the Supreme Court's June decision was not the end of constitutional scrutiny of Obamacare. There will likely be additional rulings by the highest court on other aspects of the law.

Third, the importance of the makeup of the D.C. Circuit Court cannot be overlooked. Republicans in the Senate, led by Senators Grassley and Sessions, must succeed in blocking Obama's attempt at court-packing this circuit. It would be more than just troubling to have judges concurring with the preposterous positions the Justice Department so frequently advocates. While the President has the constitutional authority to make nominations to the D.C. Circuit, the Constitution also grants the Senate the power to oppose his nominations as a safeguard "to protect against the degeneration of the Republic's original ideals and thus ensure the Republic's stability."

We will see how this plays out - but from the way it looks, yet another attempt by the RCC to push ecumenism.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/politics/obamacare-court/
11/26/13
Supreme Court to take up Obamacare contraception case

Washington (CNN) -- The high-stakes fight over implementing parts of the troubled health care reform law will move to the U.S. Supreme Court in coming months, in a dispute involving coverage for contraceptives and "religious liberty."

The justices agreed on Tuesday to review provisions in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.

At issue is whether private companies can refuse to do so on the claim it violates their religious beliefs.

Oral arguments will likely be held in March with a ruling by late June.

Nearly 50 pending lawsuits have been filed in federal court from various corporations challenging the birth control coverage benefits in the "Obamacare" law championed by President Barack Obama, which has come in for fierce political criticism over its rocky public introduction.

The high court last year narrowly upheld the key funding provision of the health care law, a blockbuster ruling affirming that most Americans would be required to purchase insurance or pay a financial penalty -- the so-called "individual mandate."

The constitutional debate now shifts to the separate employer mandates and whether corporations themselves enjoy the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

Three federal appeals courts around the country have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two other appeals courts have upheld it. That "circuit split" made a Supreme Court review more likely.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving for-profit corporations. Among the plaintiffs is Hobby Lobby, Inc. a nationwide chain of about 500 arts and crafts stores.

Hobby Lobby finds way around $1.3-million-a-day Obamacare hit - for now

David Green and his family are the owners and say their Christian beliefs clash with parts of the law's mandates for comprehensive coverage.

They say some of the drugs that would be provided prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman's womb, which the Greens equate to abortion.

The privately held company does not object to funding other forms of contraception -- such as condoms and diaphragms -- for their roughly 13,000 employees, which Hobby Lobby says represent a variety of faiths.

Companies that refuse to provide the coverage could be fined up to $1.3 million daily.

Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby, called the Supreme Court decision to hear the case a "major step" for the Greens and their business, and "an important fight for Americans' religious liberty."

The White House said on Tuesday that it believes a requirement on contraceptives is "lawful and essential to women's health."

The White House added that it is "confident the Supreme Court will agree."

The Obama administration has defended the law and federal officials say they have already created rules exempting certain nonprofits and religiously affiliated organizations from the contraceptives requirements. In those cases, women would receive coverage from another company at no cost.

The Supreme Court was asked to take up the issue by a private Christian university in Virginia but the court, without explanation, decided not to hear that appeal.

The law's supporters say it does not require individual company owners to personally provide coverage they might object, but instead places that responsibility on the corporate entity.

A key issue for the justices will be interpreting the 1993 federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Can companies, churches, and universities be included, or do the protections apply only to "persons?"

The botched rollout of HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, has become a political flashpoint along with other issues that Republicans say proves the law is unworkable.

WH: Obamacare website 'on track' to meet Nov. 30 goal

The cases accepted were Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354); and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356).

Church and state, executive power on Supreme Court docket

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-obamacare-christian-university-171307162.html
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Obamacare by Christian university

The challenge by Liberty University focused on congressional power under the commerce clause and broader claims that Obamacare violates religious rights. On Monday, the Supreme Court turned the appeal aside.
12/2/13

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal filed by a Christian university in Virginia that sought to challenge several aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Lawyers for Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., had urged the high court to consider whether Congress has the power to impose a mandate on employers to provide a government-set level of health insurance to employees or face significant financial penalties.

They also argued that the ACA and its implementing regulations violate the university’s religious rights by forcing Liberty University and its officials to make monthly payments that they said would fund abortions and to provide contraceptives that violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

The justices did not comment on why they turned the appeal aside.

Last week, the high court agreed to hear two appeals filed by for-profit corporations arguing that the ACA violates their religious rights by forcing them to provide their workers with cost-free access to certain types of contraceptives that offend their religious beliefs.

Liberty University repeated that claim in its petition to the high court. Government lawyers said the university should be barred from raising a new issue that had not been briefed and argued in the lower courts.

The center of the Liberty University challenge to the ACA focused on congressional power under the commerce clause and broader claims that the law violates religious rights.

“Just as the attempt to force individuals to purchase a particular product exceeded the limits of the Commerce Clause, so too does Congress’ attempt to force employers to purchase the same unwanted product,” Mathew Staver wrote in his brief on behalf of Liberty University.

US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urged the justices to reject the Liberty University petition. He said that Congress exercised its longstanding authority to regulate workers’ pay and that this activity is clearly within its power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congressional action in passing the employer mandate was justified under both the legislature’s commerce-clause powers and its authority to impose and collect taxes, Mr. Verrilli said.

The solicitor general said Liberty’s lawyers were mistaken in their claim that the ACA requires employers to pay into a fund to pay for abortions.

“The provision on which petitioners rely applies only if individuals choose to enroll in a plan through a health insurance exchange that elects to cover abortions, for which federal funding may not be used,” he said.

The employer mandate and the minimum coverage requirements of the law do not substantially burden Liberty University’s exercise of religion, the solicitor general said.

The case was Liberty University v. Jacob Lew, Secretary of the Treasury (13-306).

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Supreme-Court-birth-control-ruling-could-ripple-5042744.php
Supreme Court birth control ruling could ripple widely
Bob Egelko
Updated 10:31 pm, Friday, December 6, 2013

If a corporate employer can refuse on religious grounds to provide workplace insurance for contraception, what about employers with religious objections to blood transfusions or vaccinations? Or those who believe in healing by prayer?

Those questions lurk below the surface of the challenge the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review to regulations in the new federal health care law requiring employers to make contraceptive coverage available to their employees. That mandate, two groups of corporate owners argue, violates their freedom of religion.

If the court agrees, some legal analysts say, other employers would have an equal right to veto any type of health coverage that conflicts with their spiritual beliefs - insurance that covers transfusions, for example, and perhaps any type of conventional medical care, if the employer believes solely in spiritual healing.

The objections are based on a federal law forbidding government actions that burden the free exercise of religion, unless those restrictions are necessary to protect some vital public interest. If an employer can invoke that law to withhold contraceptive coverage, other categories of health insurance may also be vulnerable.

"You can't really pick and choose among kinds of health care," because the question before the court is inevitably the same: whether the decision is up to the individual or her employer, said Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University and a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration.

The Supreme Court case has implications far beyond health coverage, said Elizabeth Sepper, an associate law professor at Washington University in St. Louis specializing in health care law. As several lower-court judges have observed, she said, it would be hard for courts to draw a line between one religion's opposition to contraception and others' faith-based objections to antidiscrimination or labor laws.

"The entire regulatory state hangs in the balance here," she said.

Differing opinions

Other scholars disagreed. They noted that the Supreme Court will be looking at a 1993 federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the basis for an employer's objections to subsidizing insurance coverage that includes contraceptives. That law protects religious liberty but allows restrictions if necessary to protect a "compelling governmental interest."

"A court might say that contraception is relatively inexpensive and that failure to provide coverage for it is not sufficiently compelling to justify burdening an employer's religious liberty, while at the same time holding that failure to provide coverage for blood transfusions or vaccinations goes too far" because of the costs of getting those treatments and the potential health consequences of not having them, said Micah Schwartzman, a University of Virginia law professor.

Religious objections to specific health-care laws inevitably prompt unfounded warnings that they would lead to dangerous exemptions from a slew of government regulations, said Michael McConnell, a Stanford University law professor and former federal appeals court judge.

One source of such predictions, he said, was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a 1990 ruling that upheld state-law penalties against two American Indians for using peyote.

The defendants said the drug was part of their religious rituals, but Scalia said the government can enforce narcotics laws as long as they don't selectively target religious practices. Otherwise, he said, religious adherents will claim "exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," ranging from drug and vaccination laws to bans on child labor and animal cruelty.

1993 federal law

In response to the ruling, Congress passed the 1993 law that required the government to show compelling reasons for restricting religious liberty. None of the dire consequences forecast by Scalia has occurred since then, McConnell said.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/20/have-christians-lost-culture-war/
Have ~~Christians~~ Churchianity lost the culture war?
2/20/14

The culture war may be lost and religious liberty might not be that far behind, according to a new survey from LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Seventy percent of senior pastors at Protestant churches say religious liberty is on the decline in the United States, and 59 percent of Christians believe they are losing the culture war. Eleven percent considers that war already lost.

The survey results are staggering – indicating grave concerns about the moral direction of the nation from both the pulpit and the pew.

“Ten years ago we were talking about who would win the culture war, and now we’re talking about how will Christian rights be protected after the culture war,” Ed Stetzer, the president of LifeWay Research, told me. “We’ve lost our home field advantage. There are going to be some things that are different.”

Stetzer said it’s a big shift, “and it’s a shift I would not have guessed.”

**You forgot about the part over the SBC allowing Freemasons infiltrating by and large!

Over the past few years, I’ve documented hundreds of instances of religious persecution in the United States. And the targets have been exclusively Christians.

The military labeled evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists. Christian organizations like Family Research Council and American Family Association were labeled by the military as domestic hate groups. Bibles were briefly banned from Walter Reed Medical Center.

**But it was this very Family Research Council that ENDORSED George W. Bush's faith-based initiatives, which further yoked the government with churches who took part in this! ::)

The Internal Revenue Service targeted Christian ministries engaged in pro-life activities. The government demanded to know the content of one group’s prayers. A Wyoming church was ordered by government officials to turn over their membership roles. A Baptist newspaper in North Carolina was audited – as was America’s evangelist, Billy Graham.

**Hate to say it, but the IRS DOES have that right to look at 501c3 churches' membership rolls b/c of just that. This is NOT the only time!

As for Billy Graham - he HAS volunteered for YEARS to allow his "ministry" to be audited by the IRS! Who is he trying to fool? ::)

The list of attacks on Christians goes on and on – from students ordered to stop praying in front of the Supreme Court to chaplains being told they could no longer pray in the name of Jesus.

In recent days, the battleground has pitted gay rights groups against Christian-owned businesses that cater to the wedding industry. Christian bakers, florists and photographers have been hauled into court and brought up on state discrimination charges for declining to participate in same-sex weddings.

And in every single instance, lower courts have ruled that gay rights trump religious rights.

Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research, said the concern is widespread.

“Half of Americans say that religious liberty is on the decline,” he said. “That’s a lot of people.”

Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, conceded that Christians are losing the culture war and they are losing ground every day.

“The primary reason Christians are losing the culture wars is that pastors are AWOL when it comes to informing and energizing their congregations,” Jeffress told me.

**Apparently, you forgot about this passage of scripture...

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Unless Christians stand up and engage the political process, Jeffress said he fears there may come a day when religious liberty is extremely curtailed.

“A religious leader once said, ‘My successor will see the tax-exempt status removed from churches and his successor will go to jail,’” Jeffress said. “That is probably on the horizon.”

**Uhm, you should know that this tax-exempt status isn't even biblical. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

But there are some pockets of resistance – like the town of Greenwood in the Mississippi Delta.

Jim Phillips is the senior pastor of North Greenwood Baptist Church. He told me that Greenwood still has a “very high respect for the historical Judeo-Christian ethic.”

“Every one of my son’s community college football games around the state last season began with a prayer on the loudspeaker – in Jesus’ name,” he told me. “Will that eventually be challenged? I suspect so at some point.”

But right now, he said, “Pockets of religious boldness still exist.”

Phillips said national trends, though, are disturbing.

“Christians have slowly given away their impact on culture by becoming more and more worldly instead of confronting the culture to become more and more godly,” he said.

So who is to blame for the loss?

Phillips blames Christians.

“Sadly, Christians have often wimped out and grown silent instead of being bolder for the Gospel,” he said. “Christians get subdued into thinking they’re not supposed to rise up.”

Jeffress agreed with that assessment and said the church must involve itself in the political process.

“There are 50 to 80 million evangelicals in America,” he said. “Only half are registered to vote and only half of those voted in the last election.”

**You mean Mitt Romney, who's Romneycare ended up modeling Obamacare, would have been the "right" candidate? What if the 2016 GOP candidate is a sodomite? ::)

Jeffress said it’s imperative for people of faith to engage the culture.

“Every time we go to the voting booth we are casting a vote for ~~righteousness or unrighteousness~~ evil or eviler,” he said.

Pastor Phillips also urged his fellow pastors to step up to the plate.

“My calling is to keep leading the charge,” he said. “As a local pastor, my goal is to keep encouraging my church to seek to raise the bar and not lower it when it comes to confronting culture.”

Stetzer said he hopes the survey will spark a “fruitful national conversation about religious liberty concerns.”

“The perception was that the culture war was once a winnable war,” Stetzer said. “But it’s switched from an offensive battle to a defensive battle.”

**Uhm, it's always been a defensive battle(if you bother to read your bible)...

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Pastor Jeffress urged Christians to stand their ground.

“We ought to do everything we can to push back against this encroachment on religious liberty and protect our right to spread the Gospel,” he said.

I write about this very issue in my new book, “God Less America,” which will be published in May.

But I’m reminded of a quote by President Ronald Reagan:

“If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

A few years ago, a New York public school teacher was ordered to remove that quote from her classroom wall. She was told that it violated the U.S. Constitution.

I’m afraid we may be “gone under.”

http://news.yahoo.com/many-rights-groups-something-stake-hobby-lobby-case-205738233.html
The Many Rights Groups with Something at Stake in the Hobby Lobby Case
3/24/14

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Obamacare's requirement that insurers cover all methods of birth control, activists are starting to wonder what the case could mean for their causes. On Tuesday the court will hear cases from Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, two for-profit businesses that argue they should exempt from offering coverage for IUDs and emergency birth control because it violates their religious beliefs against abortion. The court's ruling could have important legal ramifications for LGBT, women's, and religious rights activists.

The companies argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which protects individuals from "substantial religious burden" unless it furthers a "compelling interest" of the government policy, according to the Pew Research Center. The government argues that accessible birth control is such an interest and, more importantly, the RFRA doesn't apply to businesses. Based on how the court decides — its decision is expected in June — the ruling could change the way courts understand the causes involved.

LGBT rights activists

Legal experts have argued that, if the court rules that RFRA applies to for-profit businesses, companies could argue that laws preventing discrimination against the LGBT community also be challenged, The New York Times reports. Even those who argue that the such claims are "unfounded," as Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett put it, admit there are exceptions. Arizona's bill protecting businesses that refuse to serve gay couples — vetoed this month by the governor — might be such an exception.

Religious rights activists

As Pew notes, if the court decides that the RFRA doesn't apply to for-profit businesses, that would put an end to the other legal challenges to the contraception mandate pending in courts across the country. If the court decides that the contraception mandate isn't a "substantial religious burden," that would also affect non-profit suits, who would have a harder time proving that providing insurance that covers Plan B and similar drugs is a religious burden.

Women's rights activists

Recent studies have shown that Plan B doesn't actually prevent implantation, which challenges the argument that covering Plan B affects religious objections to "abortion-inducing" drugs, The Daily Beast's Tiffany Stanley reports. Less research has been done on Ella, a week-after pill, and the two IUDs also opposed in the case. The court won't argue over the validity of Hobby Lobby's religious objection, which is its own problem. But, as Stanley writes, it's the fact that the FDA has scientifically out-of-date information on its warning labels that led to the religious objection to Plan B.

Every now and then when I drive around, I'll see restaurants and places of business that say, "Jesus is Lord". One of them I visited(a flower shop nearby), I met one of the owners - nice person, but nonetheless uses The Living Bible(one of the perversions that has the words "son of a b*tch" in it).

Pt being that it's vexing to see these places of business using the name of Jesus to buy, sell, and get gain.

http://news.yahoo.com/greed-isnt-religious-value-094500145--politics.html
Greed Isn't a Religious Value
3/25/14

Aren’t we all so relieved that corporations have finally found religion? After all, that’s the point of the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases being heard in the Supreme Court this week, right? The Affordable Care Act requires that all private, medium or large size corporations provide health insurance for their employees that covers all forms of contraception at no cost. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are trying to evade this requirement by creating a new category of faith — corporate religion.

Anyone who has paid a moment’s attention to the behaviors of big corporations in America over the past forty years is probably confused — and should be. After all, corporations have been busily dodging religious values and moral culpability in driving down the wages of workers, fraudulently selling homes and then robo-signing foreclosures, and generally bankrupting the middle class while corporate profits have skyrocketed.

During this past economic recovery, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans captured 95 percent of the post-financial crisis growth since 2009 — while the bottom 90 percent of Americans became poorer. And inequality was already bad enough — the top 1 percent of Americanscontrol one-third of our nation’s wealth even as their income disproportionately rises faster than everyone else’s. If the minimum wage kept pace with the rising incomes of the top 1 percent in America, it would now be $22.62 an hour (instead of $7.25). Worldwide, 85 of the richest people in the world control as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion of the world’s population.

But no, the big businesses of America are not finding religion to throw themselves at public mercy and plead guilt for their sins of corruption and greed. Instead, corporate America is trying to use religion to achieve new heights of greed and corruption. In this context, Hobby Lobby andConestoga Wood are best understood as having nothing to do with religious freedom or even the perpetual attempt to undermine Obamacare. Fundamentally, these cases are extensions of the undying and unbounded campaign of big business to obliterate all laws or restrictions of their power.

If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are wrongly decided, our constitutional protections for genuine religious beliefs will be turned into corporate loopholes. Imagine what General Electric and Bank of America and Exxon Mobile and every less-than-scrupulous business in America will do. Corporations could argue religious objections to hiring gay people or unmarried pregnant women. Businesses could claim religion in refusing to serve same-sex couples and interracial couples. Corporations could deny health insurance coverage for vaccines or alcoholism treatment or blood transfusions or HIV/AIDS based on religion. Even basic workplace laws and pension oversight obligations could be attacked on religious grounds. And while some of these claims might not stand, even a glimmer of precedent from the wrong Hobby Lobby andConestoga ruling would give such claims enough standing to tie up our government in endless litigation and waste tons of taxpayer dollars. With some superglue from Hobby Lobby and some wood from Conestoga, you can build yourself one heck of a dangerous slippery slope.

**No, I don't agree with everything this article says - especially THIS paragraph(which is why I crossed it out) - we should get coverage for vaccines? Has to be kidding us!

Don’t think that, in this day and age, anyone would sanction businesses discriminating on the basis of race or sexual orientation? See, Rand Paul or the Arizona legislature.

Undoubtedly, just as big business has been endlessly clever in manipulating our current laws to its extraordinary benefit, so too would it find even more possibilities of exploitation and exemption under the guise of “religious freedom”. I won’t besmirch the piety of the owners ofHobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood — I’m sure their faith is real and deep and their opposition to certain forms of contraception are genuine, however much I and the weight of science disagree with them. Private business simply can’t be allowed to assert religious protections every time they disagree with a tenant of law. And no matter how religious their founders, they chose to form corporations, to benefit from the legal protections and special rights afforded corporations in America, in exchange for giving up certain other rights. Meanwhile churches are exempted from many laws, including the contraception mandate in Obamacare and non-discrimination laws and all kinds of things. You don’t get to be both. You can’t your LLC and your church exemptions, too.

**This is what I was talking about in other threads - corporations DO get some nice perks(both for-profit and non-profit) - limited liability protections being one of them. And this exchange for giving up some of THEIR rights(ie-1st amendment). IOW, they made a CONTRACT.

Private corporations are more powerful today than at any other point in our nation’s history but I guess buying up our politicians, destroying regulations and rigging the economy simply isn’t enough. Big business wants more power and will aggressively pursue more and more power with zeal. One might even call that zeal religious — which would be the only genuinely religious thing about big business in America today.

**During my lifetime, it seems like THE TOP priorities with these politicians is, "It's the economy, stupid!". And yes, coming from ALL political-types, that is(ie-small government, religious, pro-constitution, etc).

It seems like the whole Health Care Contraceptives Mandate, Abortion, Sodomy, etc are ALL tied in together - and ultimately its AGENDA is to promote "religious freedom" at the EXPENSE of uniting all of the "faiths". And it seems like Obama is the PERFECT fall guy for this - forget about all of the Christian persecution that has been happening in ME/African countries since the 1980's b/c of wars started by Amerika. Forget about Ronald Reagan re-establishing ties with the Vatican. Forget about Bush II affirming 501c3 is the law of the land. Forget about Rick Warren's Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan countries like Rwanda that continue to have human rights abuses(including Christian persecution).

http://news.yahoo.com/abortion-fight-haunts-u-top-court-hearing-healthcare-214540940--sector.html
3/25/14
Abortion fight haunts U.S. top court hearing on healthcare law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court arguments over federal healthcare policy were nearly finished on Tuesday when Justice Anthony Kennedy challenged Obama administration lawyer Donald Verrilli on abortion rights.

"Under your view, a profit corporation ... could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," said Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the nine-member court.

**Uhm...Justice Kennedy, YOU were the one who CHANGED your vote in 1992 that lead to a 5-4 decision to uphold Roe V Wade!

While defending the part of the 2010 healthcare law known as Obamacare that requires companies to cover birth control as part of employee health insurance, Verrilli said it was unlikely the government would demand corporations pay for abortions.

"I thought that's what we had before us," John Roberts, the conservative chief justice at the center of the mahogany bench, told Verrilli, who stood at the lectern below.

By the end, it was clear that clouding the legal test of whether for-profit corporations have religious rights was the country's enduring fight over abortion, a factor that could influence the outcome on the conservative court.

The case argued on Tuesday was brought by two family-owned companies who objected on religious grounds to the Obamacare mandate that employer-sponsored insurance cover certain emergency birth control methods, such as the "morning-after pill.

Roberts said the companies fighting the birth-control requirement believe some of those methods amount to abortions. The companies contend that some of the methods do more than prevent conception but destroy fertilized eggs.

"It is their sincere belief and we don't question that," Verrilli answered. But he said that federal and state laws barring public funding for abortions did not consider the disputed forms of contraception to be abortion.

Tuesday's 90-minute session, lengthened from the usual 60 minutes to account for the many issues at stake, was tense and hard fought.

PROXY FIGHT FOR ABORTION

The conservative justices most likely to form a majority are the same five who in 2007 upheld a federal ban on a procedure called "partial birth abortion," marking the first time the court had approved a prohibition on a specific procedure.

Tuesday's case in the filled-to-capacity courtroom offered a rematch of two high-profile adversaries, lawyers who have squared off repeatedly, including in 2012 when the Obama-sponsored healthcare law faced a broad challenge - and survived.

**And remember how this very attorney defending the Obama admin in 2012 ended up getting EXPOSED during the trial - but ultimately it didn't mean anything as the game is rigged anyways.

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under Republican President George W. Bush, defended Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby, controlled by evangelical Christians, and Pennsylvania-based cabinet-manufacturer Conestoga Wood Specialties, owned by Mennonites.

Verrilli again represented the Democratic Obama administration. He stressed that the court had never before allowed for-profit corporations to claim a religious exemption to federal law and emphasized the public health interests at stake in the comprehensive healthcare law enacted in 2010.

SNOW OUTSIDE, HOT INSIDE

While hundreds of demonstrators gathered in the light snowfall outside the marble columned building, many carrying signs in support of women's equality and chanting support for birth control, the tone inside the red velvet and white marble courtroom was heated. The justices have what is known as a "hot" bench because of their active questioning and even interruptions of one another.

When Clement was at the lectern, arguing that the for-profit corporations should be covered by the 1993 law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were among the most scrutinizing.

Sotomayor suggested that if Clement prevailed, corporations with religious owners might try to object to insurance coverage for blood transfusions or vaccines. Added Kagan: "You would see religious objectors come out of the woodwork with respect to all of these laws."

When Clement returned to the lectern for his last few minutes of rebuttal, he bypassed such liberal assertions and seized on the conservatives' abortion colloquy with Verrilli.

Clement said that abortion-related conscience clauses in federal law exempt even for-profit medical providers from being forced to perform abortions.

"But we learned today that ... if Congress changes its judgment and says that a for-profit medical provider has to provide an abortion, (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) doesn't apply. That, with all due respect, cannot be what Congress had in mind when it passed" the law, he said.

None of the justices interrupted him on that point. A ruling in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius is expected by the end of June.

(Editing by Howard Goller and Grant McCool)

Supreme Court declines to hear new contraception cases
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-hear-contraception-cases-135532893--sector.html
3/31/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up preliminary appeals brought by Roman Catholic groups that want an exemption from part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring employers to provide insurance that covers contraception.

The cases were brought by a series of Roman Catholic-affiliated nonprofit groups based in Washington, D.C., including Catholic University.

The legal issue is different from one involving for-profit companies that also object on religious grounds to the so-called contraception mandate, which was argued before the high court last week.

**So it's different b/w non-profit and for-profit companies? Again, how? B/c both NFP and FP corporations(corporations, that is) both have to register with the state, and hence are under state charter. So therefore they've given over their 1st amendment rights.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the two cases at this stage means that the federal appeals court in Washington will proceed to decide the issue. If the groups lose, they would have another chance to seek Supreme Court review.

The Obamacare law requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women, including contraception and sterilization. The act makes an exception for religious institutions such as houses of worship that mainly serve and employ members of their own faith, but not for schools, hospitals and charitable organizations that employ people of all faiths.

**Yeah, there's a reason why they're using this particular agenda to drag this out. Again, a 501c3 means they've given up their 1st amendment rights, as they are under state charter.

As a compromise, the administration agreed to an accommodation for non-profits affiliated with religious entities that was finalized in July 2013. But the various Catholic groups said the compromise process still violated their religious rights, prompting a new wave of litigation.

**Don't see how(as explained above), and especially considering Congress shall make no law favoring one religion over another.

Courts across the country have granted the groups injunctions which prevent the administration from enforcing the mandate during the litigation.

The cases are Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius and Priests for Life v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, 13-891 and 13-829.

Woe to ye Pharisees, scribes, HYPOCRITES...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
04/1/14
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights.

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

As I suspect many readers will find this as hard to believe and digest as I, the data can be confirmed by reviewing the company’s 2012 Annual Report of Employee Benefit Plan as filed with the Department of Labor.

This according to Mother Jones’ Molly Redden:

“Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

Redden additionally notes that, in a brief submitted to the Court in support of Hobby Lobby’s position in the case, the company specifically names contraceptive products such as Plan B, Ella, and IUDs as violating their religious beliefs because they work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus.

According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require .

However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles.

The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting:

“These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT +1.64%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE -0.53%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +0.77%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET +0.11% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets.

You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans—but I am afraid you would be wrong.

No only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

“To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.

Apparently, Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care.

For me, this story will forever be filed under the heading of “no good deed goes unpunished”.

While I have disagreed with Hobby Lobby’s legal position in their case before the Supreme Court on a number of levels, I have gone out of my way—both in print and on radio & television—to advise others not to vilify the Greens as individuals just because you might disagree with their position on contraceptive coverage via the Affordable Care Act. I say this because, from what I had previously been able to learn, these were decent people who have long taken appropriate care of its employees by paying in excess of minimum wage and providing all employees with healthcare benefits.

But to now discover that these people are seeking to avoid their obligation under the law to provide their employees with a contraceptive benefit at the same time they are allowing their 401(k) to invest in—and profit from—these very products is, in my view, completely unforgivable.

For those wondering if the family is personally participating in the 401(k) program, I have been unable to get anyone at Hobby Lobby to confirm or deny the same. However, it would be highly unlikely that, as officers of the company, the Greens would not be participating in the 401(k) plan as they are employees of the corporation.

While these revelations will likely have no impact on the outcome of the case pending in the Supreme Court, the sheer and stunning hypocrisy of these people will forever stain any finding by the Court in favor of Hobby Lobby—should this come to pass.

While I may not agree with the legal position Hobby Lobby has taken in their lawsuit, I always stand in admiration of those willing to fight for their constitutional rights when they believe they are being taken.

Hobby Lobby is entitled to no such admiration—only contempt. You simply can’t say that you will give your all in defense of your closely held beliefs when it suits you while seeking to make money in violation of those beliefs. You also cannot pretend you were simply negligent in learning what investments you hold if you are going to hold yourself out as an example of righteousness.

By setting this perfectly awful example, Hobby Lobby’s hypocrisy will do little to aid—and much to deter—others willing to stand up for the Bill of Rights in the future. All they have accomplished is to provide more air to the cynicism that already envelops the nation, cynicism that exists precisely because of entities like Hobby Lobby.

Quote from: Kilika on April 02, 2014, 03:51:05 am

Even after reading this here and the other thread, I still smell something fishy with this article.

FYI, the source of this article comes from Mother Jones - however, a lot of media sources has reported this quoting the MJ main source. It's not just the "liberal" ones, but the "conservative" ones like Forbes as well(ie-you would think Forbes would be friendly toward Hobby Lobby, especially considering both are corporation-friendly).

With that being said - personally, I'm tired of these mainline, popular Churchianity entities like Hobby Lobby(and these "prominent evangelicals" like Franklin Graham and Rick Warren) acting like it's ONLY THEM that's being attacked. How about all of these working/middle class Christians that struggle to make ends meet? How about all of those poor Christians in 3rd world countries that are persecuted daily(including in Warren's Purpose Driven country Rwanda)? Why isn't the MSM and Churchianity sects like the SBC expressing their concerns over them instead?

And for that matter too - you see these Churchianity sects primarily focus on abortion and gay marriage(which HL and F. Graham do), which is all and good - but why aren't they exposing other doctrines of devils like evolution in public schools?(they seem to stand down on the public school system as well) Yes, abortion and evolution have very close ties to each other.

Anyhow - just my take after many years in these Babel church buildings. With that being said - after reading other articles concerning Hobby Lobby and the USSC case surrounding it, yes, this particular article could be a hit piece. But at the same time, there's probably SOME truth to it.

Quote from: Mark on April 02, 2014, 12:05:14 pm

I find it hard to believe that Hobby Lobby actually administers their 401k program. That stuff is almost always handled by an outside brokerage that specializes in that sort of thing. Some place like JP Morgan or something.

Also i see this as nothing more than just an attack on Hobby Lobby because they are fighting back against obamacare. its like Liberal Nut Job day on this story. And it has nothing to really do with the how they invest but, the fact that they have standards and morals, which of course is something the liberals CANNOT stand.

Well, Forbes just put out another article on this - this time not only defending Hobby Lobby, but also calling this Mother Jones story source absurd.

Either way, I don't know what kind of game the MSM minions are playing here - one minute they write an expose on HL, the next minute they're calling out this absurd MJ source. Like I was saying - this is typical of them.

As for Hobby Lobby fighting back against Obamacare? What about the rest of the Christian folks like us? Do we count too? Personally, I'm thankful the Lord showed me discernment to stay away from this - but I still have to pay the fine, no biggie. Anyhow here goes the Forbes article(this time refuting the MJ source)...

Hobby Lobby Owners Can Have a 401(k) and First Amendment Rights

There’s been an absurd story from Mother Jones making the rounds this week. Authored by Molly Redden (who has never signed the front of a paycheck, but does “spend too much time cooking and watching television,” according to her bio) and echoed here on Forbes.com by Rick Ungar, the argument is that Hobby Lobby can’t have religious convictions and a regular 401(k) plan for their employees at the same time.

Hobby Lobby (which is a closely-held corporation with a few family owners) is suing the Obama Administration over Obamacare’s requirement that Hobby Lobby pay directly for drugs which can and do lead to early-pregnancy abortions. Being a material and proximate cooperator in such an action violates the business owners’ deeply-held religious views protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Apparently, this also means that Hobby Lobby can’t have a 401(k) plan for their employees? Why? Well, according to Redden and Ungar, the Hobby Lobby owners are religious kook hypocrites. The company 401(k) plan has investments which themselves invest in companies that make the abortion drugs.

This is a ridiculous argument for several reasons, all of which would be obvious to Redden and Ungar if they had ever run a business in their lives:

401(k) plans are directed and invested by employees, not by employers. It’s the Hobby Lobby employees that would be disenfranchised by the twisted logic employed by Redden and Ungar here. They are the ones–not their bosses–who choose which mutual funds to invest in. This is true both of the employee’s elective deferral and the employer’s match.

The menu of choices is primarily provided not by the Hobby Lobby employers, but by the 401(k) plan administrator, who helps select a wide menu of mutual fund (and, increasingly, exchange-traded fund) choices so that the fiduciary obligations of the plan are met.

401(k) plans don’t invest in company stock–they invest in mutual funds. A mutual fund, to state the obvious, is an investment company which invests assets in actual stocks. When you buy a share of a mutual fund, you are buying a very small indirect ownership of hundreds or even thousands of stocks. The most common 401(k) plan mutual funds are index funds, which invest the fund shareholder in the entire stock market (or close to it) in one fell swoop.

401(k) plans have a limited number of choices, and that’s a good thing. Redden in particular seems to think that you can invest your 401(k) dollars (actually, that your employer can invest your 401(k) dollars) in any mutual fund at all, including socially-conscious ones. That’s not accurate. Plan administrators contract with select mutual fund companies to provide basic investment products diversified by sector, asset class, duration, risk, etc. This is the primary goal of diversification of fund choices, not socially-conscious investing. Besides, it’s the employees who call the shots. They may not share the same values as the Hobby Lobby owners, and might have a very different idea of what a “socially responsible” fund would invest in.

Furthermore, you don’t want to provide dozens to hundreds of investment choices for employees. All the research I’ve ever seen on this has said that if you give employees too many choices, they will fear making a bad one and never deploy their cash toward any investment at all. Additionally, each new mutual fund offered within a plan drives up 401(k) plan fees. Surely Redden and Ungar agree with the Obama Administration that 401(k) fees are too high and should come down, right?

What does Mother Jones’ or Mercury Public Affairs’ 401(k) plan look like? Those are the employers of Redden and Ungar, respectively. Surely those 401(k) plans invest in stocks of oil and gas companies, defense contractors, private equity firms, and other evil conservative power bastions. Have Redden and/or Ungar done a forensic investigation of the mutual funds they are invested in? Should I call them hypocrites for daring to invest in a 401(k) which invests in a mutual fund which invests in a multinational company which happens to own an oil company? If not, consider that the Hobby Lobby employers have one more degree of separation even from Redden and Ungar. Our two intrepid reporters affirmatively chose to invest in merchants of death when they picked out their 401(k) choices. All Hobby Lobby is doing is providing the platform for employees to make those same choices themselves in partnership with plan administrators.

It’s an absurd argument, and one which isn’t that hard to dispute if you’re familiar with how 401(k) plans actually work. But it’s not surprising to see such a weak argument advanced. The secular Left is doing everything they can to drive people of faith from the public square’s marketplace. The ridiculous idea that a religiously-convicted employer can’t offer a reasonable 401(k) plan is really not that different from saying a religiously-convicted photographer can be ordered by the government to shoot a gay wedding. Religious minorities are under assault from secular bullies, and unfortunately Redden and Ungar are in their ranks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2014/04/02/hobby-lobby-owners-can-have-a-401k-and-first-amendment-rights/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I'm not trying to dispute what this article says - but nonetheless the language used in this article is typical Hegelian Dialectic we see from these minions when agendas are being pushed.

It's not like Forbes is calling out Dan Rather, Katie Couric, or CNN - it's calling out it's OWN journalists that (supposedly)reported falsely on this! Hello? Forbes is a PRO-corporate publication!

Quote from: Mark on April 02, 2014, 01:54:12 pm

??? the article got it right. Hobby Lobby them selves dont invest the funds. The MJ article is full of lies and distortions.

Mother Jones works for FORBES?

Scroll up further in this thread - I posted an article from this same Forbes news site yesterday that tried to expose Hobby Lobby's 401k investments in these abortion drugs(using this Mother Jones source, that is).

Then all of a sudden less than 24 hours later, this VERY same Forbes news site writes up an article exposing the Mother Jones source(which this very same Forbes news site used yesterday to exposed HL) for its lies and distortions? Again, it wasn't like it was Dan Rather or some MSNBC communist source that used this Mother Jones source for a hit piece against HL.

Seriously - either Forbes has some very incompetent editors(allowing the previous writers to use this MJ erroneous source), or they're doing all of this by design to manipulate the masses. Either way - why in the world would Forbes go from one day using this Mother Jones source like it's fact, to the next day exposing this very same lying Mother Jones source? And it wasn't like they issued an apology for incorrectly doing so.(and like said too, Forbes is a pro-corporate news site)

Like I was saying - the Illuminati/MSM minions have done this for many years - playing this little Hegelian Dialectic game to stir up the emotions of the masses.

Also - it's not only the liberal media sources running away with this - even "conservative" sites like the Tea Party are running away with it too.

Yes - I know the last article got it right, but was just pointing out their real intentions.

Don't mean to drag this out further - but posting this here b/c it's not just the "liberal" sources putting out a hit piece on Hobby Lobby. Even these (professing)"conservative" sources(like CNS news here) are joining in on the hit piece parade as well.

Hobby Lobby 401(k) invests in birth control makers
April 2, 2014 - 5:03 PM - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hobby-lobby-401k-invests-birth-control-makers#sthash.Qo8KBbwk.dpuf

WASHINGTON (AP) — The company leading the legal challenge against birth control coverage under the new health care law offers its workers a retirement plan that includes investments in companies making contraceptive and abortion drugs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. has a 401(k) plan featuring several mutual funds investing in pharmaceutical firms that produce intrauterine birth control devices, emergency contraceptive pills and drugs used in abortion procedures, according to Labor Department documents and a review of fund portfolios. Hobby Lobby and the Green family that owns it say their religious beliefs prohibit them from offering health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that can work after conception. The retailer and others have sued the Obama administration, challenging the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide coverage for all approved forms of birth control, including the morning-after pill and similar drugs that may work after an egg has been fertilized. The Supreme Court heard arguments last week and is expected to issue a ruling by June. "This is the height of hypocrisy," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement. "Hobby Lobby's CEO wants to deny the company's 13,000 employees access to affordable birth control, while investing in pharmaceutical companies that make it." Hobby Lobby spokeswoman Emily Hardman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The magazine Mother Jones first reported Hobby Lobby's retirement plan investment holdings. Hobby Lobby's 401(k) plan includes funds that invest in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, maker of Plan B, known as the morning-after pill, and ParaGard, an intrauterine device. Hobby Lobby objects to offering employee coverage for both forms of birth control. Other holdings include Pfizer, maker of the drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2 used to induce abortions, and Forest Laboratories, maker of Cervidil, which is also used to induce abortions. Some of the funds also invest in health insurance companies Aetna and Humana, which offer policies covering emergency contraception and surgical abortions. The pharmaceutical companies are among dozens of holdings by each mutual fund, and represent just a fraction of the overall investment. The investments were disclosed in December in an annual filing that Hobby Lobby made to the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Labor Department agency that oversees employer-sponsored retirement plans. Hobby Lobby offered to match employee contributions to the 401(k) plan, an amount totaling $3.8 million in 2012. The Green family says it believes life begins at conception, and lawyers for the Greens say following the provisions of the new federal health care law would either violate their religious beliefs or force them to pay millions of dollars in fines. The company's insurance plans do offer 16 other forms of birth control mentioned in the federal health care law. The Obama administration says a victory for Hobby Lobby and other companies challenging the law would prevent their female employees from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hobby-lobby-401k-invests-birth-control-makers#sthash.Qo8KBbwk.dpuf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this is from a "conservative" news source, who also credited that MJ source like it was FACT. This is just me, but there seems to be a BIG stink about an agenda they're pushing in the dark.

Edit: AP reports the same thing too.
http://news.yahoo.com/hobby-lobby-401-k-invests-birth-control-makers-203810924--politics.html

A couple of comments here(over something that really stuck out)...

Quote from: BornAgain2 on April 02, 2014, 07:17:08 pm

Hobby Lobby 401(k) invests in birth control makers
April 2, 2014 - 5:03 PM - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hobby-lobby-401k-invests-birth-control-makers#sthash.Qo8KBbwk.dpuf

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. has a 401(k) plan featuring several mutual funds investing in pharmaceutical firms that produce intrauterine birth control devices, emergency contraceptive pills and drugs used in abortion procedures, according to Labor Department documents and a review of fund portfolios.

Quote

The company's insurance plans do offer 16 other forms of birth control mentioned in the federal health care law. The Obama administration says a victory for Hobby Lobby and other companies challenging the law would prevent their female employees from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hobby-lobby-401k-invests-birth-control-makers#sthash.Qo8KBbwk.dpuf

So it was the LABOR DEPARTMENT that exposed this info? And all Mother Jones did(pretty much) was report from THIS very LABOR DEPARTMENT documents? Do you see all of the misdirection going on here? First they say how it was Mother Jones was the primary source, but what they DIDN'T say(for the most part) was that all MJ did was report what was said in the Labor Dpt documents? So pretty much the average reader/listener of this will come away thinking it was some rag source that put out a hit piece.

Yes, I understand how mutual funds work(as we explained above) - but nonetheless was just pointing out the big picture of how they were trying to pull some misdirection.

And look at the second quotation para above - Hobby Lobby's insurance plans DO offer other types of birth control, if I'm reading this right? And now they're complaining about their constitutional rights and "religious freedoms" being violated ???

Look at all of the misdirection going on here - FYI, these Pentacostal and "money making" churches ARE branches of the Catholic Church! And to boot - Rwanda happens to be one of Rick Warren's Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan "Purpose Driven" countries, and guess what, the United Nations declared this very country to be under human rights abuses in recent years!

There's going to be NO "revival" in the last days of the Church Age!

http://news.yahoo.com/evangelism-booms-catholicism-suffers-post-genocide-rwanda-043338846.html
4/9/14
Evangelism booms, Catholicism suffers in post-genocide Rwanda

Kigali (AFP) - Jean-Claude Zamwita's family abandoned the solemn organ music and stained glass windows of the Catholic church in 2006, eight years after the genocide in Rwanda, and started visiting an evangelical church with tambourines and drumming.

Such churches have been springing up across Rwanda, partly because the traditional churches, notably the Catholic Church, were largely discredited by the role played by some of their clerics during the killings.

Since the end of the genocide, which left some 800,000 people -- essentially Tutsis -- dead, Rwandans have increasingly turned to pentecostal churches or in some cases to Islam.

Zamwita, who was 15 when his family changed churches, said it was an easy decision.

"When we used to attend mass there was no interaction between the priest and the congregation. I was like a slave, being told what to do and what not to do. Here I feel free," he said.

The new churches started when Rwandan refugees came back from neighbouring countries such as Uganda or the Democratic Republic of Congo, where evangelical churches are already well established.

**FYI, I believe Warren is also active in Uganda.

"These churches are attractive because there is singing, a big display of emotion and an opportunity for individual expression," explained Paul Rutayisire, a historian specialised in religious issues.

Inside the Celpar church that Zamwita and his family attend, the service looks more like a rock concert than anything else.

On a small stage a dozen members of the congregation sing, dance, leap into the air and then throw themselves to their knees. Others throw their arms into the air, wipe tears from their eyes before plunging their head into their hands as if the end was near.

"After the genocide people were spiritually weak. They were sick," explained James Nsengiyumva, the 39-year-old preacher and secretary general of Celpar. "We brought them a new message of empowerment and reconciliation."

This Ugandan-born Rwandan, dressed in a well-cut suit, has 29 churches in Rwanda, three in neighbouring Burundi and a further 40 in DR Congo.

The new churches have found post-genocide Rwanda to be fertile ground as the Catholic Church, while still powerful, no longer has the close relationship to the government that it enjoyed prior to 1994.

Rwanda is still dotted with the ruins of Catholic churches where the faithful seeking shelter were massacred, sometimes with members of the clergy acting in complicity with the killers.

The debate over the role of the Catholic Church was revived on Monday when Rwanda's representative to UNESCO lashed out at the Vatican.

The Catholic Church, a moral authority and an important institution remained silent," Jacques Kabale, Rwanda's ambassador to France and to the UN agency, said on Monday, the 20th anniversary of the genocide.

**Again, the human rights abuses continued when Warren made this one of his "Purpose Driven" countries.

"Its abandonment was felt all the more keenly in that some of its members hid criminal actions," he said.

In spite of everything the Catholic Church has not totally lost its influence, Rutayisire said.

"People go to the Catholics, then to the others. Some people even go to both... those are spiritual journeys."

"The debate over the role of the Catholic Church in the genocide is something that is of interest to an elite group of genocide survivors, for within the majority that was not persecuted (i.e. the Hutu) this is not an issue," he added.

"We don't see them as competition," said Smaragde Mbonyintege, the head of the Episcopal Conference in Rwanda, adding that the Catholic Church had a lot to learn from the preaching methods of the new churches.

The Rwandan government for its part considers that if the evangelical churches do not for the moment represent a threat to public order, they are nevertheless difficult to keep tabs on.

"They are sprouting up like mushrooms," said Felicien Usengumukiza, deputy director general of the Rwanda Governance Board, noting that many of those in charge of evangelical churches seem more interested in making money.

If the evangelical churches get financing from outside the country, they also depend on contributions from the faithful. Zamwita, who ekes out a living from odd jobs, gives, like many other member of the flock who can barely afford it, 10 percent of his earnings to the church.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a lot like churches in America now - young people, in particular, are jumping ship from both these Catholic churches, as well as these Baptist/Protestant money-greedy/live under the law Babel buildings to these seeker-sensitive/social justice/liberal megachurches.

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2014/06/20/brody-file-exclusive-mike-huckabee-to-take-iowa-south-carolina.aspx
6/20/14
Brody File Exclusive: Mike Huckabee To Take Iowa, South Carolina Pastors To Europe On "Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II Tour"

The Brody File has learned that Mike Huckabee will host evangelical pastors from the early political Primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada as he leads them over to Europe in an event called, “Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II Tour: God Raising Extraordinary Leaders for Extraordinary Times"

Watch the invitation video below that Mike Huckabee is sending out to pastors in these key states. It goes out today. Huckabee says he’s leading this tour because it’s an opportunity to show, “the human instruments used by God to change the world’s history.”

The 10-day tour takes place this November and will take Huckabee and the influential pastors to Krakow Poland, London England and Los Angeles California. The highlights include a visit to Auschwitz and a tour of Schindler's Factory, visiting important sites of Pope John Paul II, dinner at the Churchill War Rooms, a visit to Parliament and interacting with Parliament members. The tour concludes in Los Angeles with a tour of the Reagan Library and a speech by Governor Huckabee.

Influential evangelical operative David Lane has organized all of this. Lane’s influence can be felt in many states across the country. He’s raised millions of dollars to put together, “Pastors and Pews” events, in which pastors come together to effectively mobilize their congregations, all in an effort to motivate their Christian flocks to vote. The conferences also encourage pastors to speak out more boldly from the pulpit on the key cultural issues of the day. In short, it’s an effort to save the culture and bring about another spiritual awakening in America.

With the tour coming right after the Midterm Elections, you can be sure it will lead to increased speculation that Huckabee is seriously looking at running for President of the United States. By taking pastors from key Primary states along with him, there’s no doubt he’ll be able to get a better sense of the playing field before making that important decision. But ultimately, this is something much bigger than just a political play. Huckabee truly believes a spiritual awakening is needed in this country and that pastors must engage from the pulpit before it’s too late. That’s a sentiment; no matter what candidate you root for, that evangelical Christians can and need to fully embrace.

Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday night that he would be ending his Fox News talk show to gauge support for a possible presidential campaign.

“There has been a great deal of speculation as to whether I would run for President,” Huckabee told his followers on Facebook. “I won’t make a decision about running until late in the spring of 2015, but the continued chatter has put Fox News into a position that is not fair to them.”

“I feel compelled to ascertain if the support exists strongly enough for another Presidential run. So as we say in television, stay tuned!” he added.

Huckabee, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and hosted his show for more than six and a half years, had drawn renewed attention by criticizing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton last month after she said “smart power” also means empathizing and showing respect for enemies.

“How can we empathize with terrorists who think nothing of beheading innocent men, women and children?” Huckabee asked in a blog post on his website last month.

The 2016 race is already well underway online.

Even before Huckabee had made his announcement, Rand Paul’s PAC was firing away on the digital front. Just as the Kentucky Republican’s political arm had done when Jeb Bush signaled last month he was weighing a White House campaign, Paul’s team bought prime real estate for any Google searches using the terms “Huckabee record”, “Huckabee announcement”, “Huckabee taxes” and “Huckabee common core.”

“Less Taxes Not More,” read one ad for RandPAC. “We need leaders who will cut taxes not raise them. Join us.”

RandPAC also targeted users tweeting about Huckabee or his announcement with ads.

Huckabee’s leadership PAC, Huck PAC, took in $2.2 million in the 2014 cycle, spending approximately $2 million, with about $500,000 on hand. Huckabee’s daughter, Sarah Huckabee, also runs a super PAC called American Principles Fund. In the 2014 cycle, it raised $1.4 million, spent $1.3 million and had $60,000 on hand.

Huckabee came in a distant second to John McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries. The former pastor turned Arkansas governor started strong, winning the Iowa GOP caucus by 9 percentage points over Mitt Romney.

Three-in-five Iowa caucusgoers in 2008 were evangelical or born-again Christians, but, a week later in New Hampshire, fewer than 25 percent of GOP primary voters were evangelicals. Huckabee finished third in the Granite State, with only 11 percent of the vote.

He then captured his home state of Arkansas, along with Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia. Despite these victories, McCain secured the necessary number of delegates by early March with a clean sweep of contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.

Even though Huckabee faded quickly in 2008, his win in the Iowa caucuses left a big mark on the electorate that votes in that contest, which is a more conservative and more evangelical group than even other segments of the GOP primary electorate elsewhere.

But his slow strip toward ultimately saying he wouldn’t run in 2012 has left many skeptical of his intentions for 2016. The former Arkansas governor appears to have profited financially from being in the national spotlight — raking in money from paid speeches, for instance, and making expansive use of chartered planes — and many believe he’s unlikely to leave aside a life of relative comfort for a long-shot campaign.

Sources say Huckabee still has paid speeches scheduled in the coming weeks. Huckabee also has a book coming out later this month, titled “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” and speculation about a presidential run could add to the hype as he promotes the book.

Any number of politicians have been paid contributors to Fox News, but the cable channel’s policy requires it to sever those ties if that person takes certain steps toward running for office. At times, it has ended the agreements even before the would-be candidate makes a final decision on whether to run.

Huckabee wrote on his Facebook page earlier that the announcement Saturday night would “make news for sure.”

It’s not the first time he has made an important decision public on his show, which debuted in September 2008. In May 2011, Huckabee teased a similar announcement ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

“All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” he told viewers.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mike-huckabee-ends-talk-show-weighs-presidential-run-113948.html#ixzz3Nr2YfJiT

http://www.msnbc.com/all/mike-huckabee-room-tent-gay-marriage-supporters
Huckabee: ‘Room in the tent’ for gay marriage supporters
02/01/15 04:26 PM—UPDATED 02/01/15 04:46 PM

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee acknowledged Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that there is a role in the Republican Party for people who support gay marriage.

While he admitted there is “room in the tent” for Republicans with different beliefs on the issue than his own, the pastor and potential 2016 contender said that expecting Christians to accept gay marriage is “like asking someone who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli … or like asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him, or to have dogs in his backyard.”

“We’re so sensitive to make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can’t have the convictions that they’ve had for 2,000 years,” Huckabee said. “Unless I get a new version of the scriptures, it’s not really my place to say, OK, I’m just going to evolve.”

Previously, Huckabee had signaled that if the Republican Party embraced same-sex marriage, it would lose his support.

“If the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue – go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either,” he said during a radio interview with the American Family Association. “At that point, you lose me. I’m gone. I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this,” Huckabee said.

Elaborating on an excerpt from his book in which he says he has gay friends and associates, Huckabee, when pressed on whether being gay is a choice, compared sexual orientation with a lifestyle choice like drinking or swearing.

“People can be my friends who have lifestyles that are not necessarily my lifestyle. I don’t shut people out of my circle or out of my life because they have a different point of view,” Huckabee said Sunday. “I don’t drink alcohol, but gosh—a lot of my friends, maybe most of them, do. You know, I don’t use profanity, but believe me, I’ve got a lot of friends who do. Some people really like classical music and ballet and opera – it’s not my cup of tea.”

Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa caucus, downplayed the results of a new poll of likely Republican caucus-goers in the state released by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics in which he came in third behind Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, each separated by one point.

“It’s a little too early to take too much into it,” Huckabee said, admitting that “if I were at the top of the poll, I would tell you this is very significant. The fact that I’m not, well, it’s not as important as it seems to be. I mean, that’s how the game is played.”

More than half of Americans support legal gay marriage, while the number is nearly eight in 10 among young adults.

End Times and Current Events

General Category => Catholicism => Topic started by: Mark on February 10, 2012, 02:46:08 pm