In the past 15 months, President Obama has demonstrated in four separate incidences that he has openly declared war on religion.  First, Obama tried to pass a budget that would force a cut in charitable contributions to the churches.  Second, Obama stated that there is no more option for religious objections to federal rulings. Catholic organizations and other religious institutions must provide contraception to its employee despite the religious belief that contraception is immoral.

Then Obama also meddled in the dismissal of a church leader and teacher in Michigan; bringing charges and fines against the Lutheran church for dismissing a church ‘minister’.  

This was followed when Obama widened the religious war by coming out with the endorsement of gay marriage. Although he appeared to be speaking of personal convictions not in terms of a governmental mandate, the line is very small. This is an offense to all Christian, Jewish and Islamic organizations who believe that gay marriage is immoral.

Elimination of Charitable deductions:

In February 2011, President Obama presented a budget in which tax exemptions for Charitable giving would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. This was the third such budget targeting charitable contributions. This budget was unanimously voted down by both Republicans and Democrats alike, but it clearly demonstrates his position on charitable giving. The largest recipient of charitable donations is the local Church.

The tax code currently encourages charitable donations by allowing taxpayers to deduct those contributions from their taxable income. The American people are extremely generous in giving to their local communities, and this deduction contributes to this generosity. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has repeatedly proposed that individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000 a year lose their charitable deductions.

In his testimony before the Finance Committee, Elder Oaks, president of BYU, confirmed that the private organizations that receive charitable donations are "responsible for tens of millions of jobs and innumerable services that benefit our citizens at every level." However, if the latest proposal to reduce the tax deduction for charitable donations from 35 percent to 28 percent were enacted, it would cost charities as much as $5.6 billion per year, according to the Urban Institute's Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy.

Oaks continued, “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that all of the president’s proposals to limit the charitable deduction could result in as much as a $10 billion drop in donations annually. For this reason, I am strongly opposed to the president's proposal, and I am fighting to ensure that it does not become law.”

Senator Orrin Hatch re-affirmed Oaks, “A quick look at the hurricane relief provided to the Gulf Coast in 2005 shows what a difference charitable donations can make. After Hurricane Katrina, more than $3.5 billion in cash and in-kind donations — food, water, clothing, medical supplies and other services — were donated. Roughly $2.1 billion in private donations for hurricane relief went to the American Red Cross, which sent more than 200,000 volunteers to the region to build shelters, provide meals and emergency assistance.

And they were not alone.

Catholic Charities donated $154 million, and hundreds of other organizations rushed in with volunteers, money and other resources to help people and businesses in the region get back on their feet.”

When waging any war, the first course of action is to cut the source of funding for the enemy. Prior to the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, an embargo against those countries was put into place.  Obama is taking a similar approach to churches and charities.

The May edition of the Michigan Law review recognizes that the Federal government has launched an attack on non-profit organizations.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-226362246.html

Contraceptive services and the church:

A lawsuit was filed by the Thomas Moore Law Center on behalf of business owners and Catholic organizations in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The filing is an attempt to obtain a court ruling that permanently blocks the implementation of the HHS mandate “requiring employers and individuals to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception.”

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, explained, “Whether you are a Catholic or Protestant or have no religion at all, the free exercise of religion and right of conscience is our most fundamental human right and must be vigorously defended on behalf of all Americans. Or else our Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper with nice sounding words. That’s why I believe every American regardless of religious beliefs has a stake in the successful outcome of this lawsuit.”

The lawsuit explains, “This is a case about religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of our country, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third president, when describing the construct of our Constitution proclaimed, ‘No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.’”

The case seeks a declaration that the mandate violates the Constitution and cannot be enforced.

Further, the case explains that the Christian beliefs were targeted because there have been “numerous exemptions” to the requirements “which appear arbitrary.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke: "It is not only a matter of what we call "material cooperation" in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also "formal cooperation" because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong. Catholic employers, directly or indirectly, cannot provide contraceptive coverage because they would be materially and formally cooperating with sin." (The reference to indirect provision of contraceptives is a response to Obama’s secondary proposal to require the church’s insurance company to provide contraceptives.)

Michigan Lutheran School:

 An Evangelical Lutheran church and school in Michigan had dismissed a teacher who taught religious and nonreligious classes. The teacher had openly opposed church policy and statements of faith. The school administrators were content to maintain her employment contingent on her ceasing to teach doctrine contrary to church beliefs. Despite several warnings, the teacher continued to teach material deemed to be ‘heresy’ by the church, and was dismissed.  She went to the EEOC to file a complaint against the church.

The EEOC and justice department picked up her cause and brought charges against the church. This, then, went to the courts.

Federal courts have generally barred such lawsuits, leery of getting tangled up in church doctrine and discipline. But an appeals court ruled in favor of the teacher.

This case was viewed by Holder as a stepping stone into church matters. The justice department said churches and their schools should be treated no differently from other employers. Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean the Catholic Church could be forced to admit women to the priesthood.

When the case was argued before the Supreme Court, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia marveled at the administration’s claim: “There, black on white in the text of the Constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?” Exclaimed liberal Justice Elena Kagan, whom Obama appointed, “I too find that amazing.”

In a 9-0 decision and a strong rebuke to President Obama and his Department of Justice, the court held that churches and other religious groups were to be free in choosing and dismissing their leaders without government interference. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers [...] and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.” For scholars of religious liberty, the administration’s effort to effectively repeal the centuries-old ministerial exemption was a shocking overreach that appeared to antagonize the entire American religious community.

The government has no business in deciding who is and who is not a minister in a church.  Religious organizations must protect the rights of their employees, but a religious organization must be free from governmental interference when it comes to how it imposes discipline on people involved in ministry within the control of those institutions.

Gay Marriage:

In early April, President Obama stepped in the arena of gay marriage. While in St Paul, Obama addressed the Minnesota gay marriage initiative, stating that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is ‘divisive and discriminatory.’ 

The Organizing for America-Minnesota Communications Director Kristin Sosanie in a statement released Monday, April 9^th:

“While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples.  That’s what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.”

First, God created marriage and defined marriage far before the US was conceived. Man has no right to re-define anything that God has defined. Marriage is a fundamental religious act; sacred in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In one statement, he managed to offend the three primary religions in the US.

Second, the Minnesota gay marriage initiative is a state issue, not a Federal issue. 

Third, the gay lobby could push for a recognized civil union and create an entity separate and distinct from marriage. But they have repeatedly said that they are not interested in creating a separate entity. They prefer to expand the traditionally narrow scope of marriage to accept gay couples.

Since the Minnesota ballot, President Obama has taken the second step into the gay marriage arena. While Obama will not enact laws that make gay marriage legal, he will use his agencies to make life miserable for those who stand against it.  

Priests and pastors who oppose gay marriage feel uneasy about Obama’s support of gay marriage. One pastor stated, “President Obama has a history of circumventing congress to enact policy as he wishes. For example, Obama does not like coal power. Knowing that he can’t get anti-coal legislation through congress, he had the EPA enact rules that, in effect, destroy the coal power industry. Likewise, Obama will use the IRS, EEOC and the Justice department to create rules to harass churches that do not comply with his wishes.” 

 

“If our church declines to allow a gay couple to rent the facilities for a wedding or reception, the Obama administration will certainly use the power at its disposal to penalize the church. His endorsement of gay marriage is a signal that he will do everything in his power to legislate it.”  

If President Obama gets the church to compromise on their fundamental beliefs, such as life and marriage, the church will no longer stand for anything and will succumb to societal whims.   When the church becomes contentless, it will disappear.

 

Where does Obama want to take this war on religion? What is his next step? Will he revoke the tax exempt status for churches? What does Obama hope to achieve in this war on religion?   

Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriage has stirred both sides of the debate.  On one side of the debate, the traditionalist will say that SSM has no place in society and forbidden based on Judeo Christian principles; therefore man does not have the authority to over rule tradition and approve what Christian principles disprove of.  On the other side are the enlightened reformers who don’t believe that Christian values should influence society.  If it feels good and it doesn’t hurt anyone else, we should be allowed to do it.

In the matter of reforming things, there is a principle which can probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer casually approaches it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'Even if you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go back to the time and place which this gate was build and look through the eyes of the builder.  You may discover that you will not want to tear this gate down.’

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.

This gate of marriage, as defined as the union of one man and one woman was established thousands of years ago.  Many debates have been waged over this gate.  There are areas of this gate in which the war has clearly taken its toll on it.  But many areas have been rebuilt, reinforced and repaired.  Since this gate has been the scene of so many battles and conflicts, it must represent something bigger and more crucial to life than we can fully understand. 

It is extremely probable that if something was set up for and by human beings like us it can not be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as a historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.  

There are, in essence, two basic responses to the gate in our path.  The first and most noble response is that although our minds can’t fully comprehend the purpose of the gate, we bend our knee to the wisdom of God, our forefathers and tradition.  Thus, we comply with an institution for which its foundation isn’t fully understood.  We realize that there is much in this life that we can’t know or comprehend and we must believe that our forefather built this gate with much blood, sweat and tears for the purpose of protecting us.  This attitude causes us to be grateful for the gate.

The second response is to destroy the gate.  The builders of the gate certainly weren’t as enlightened as I am.  I know better, see further and understand more than my forefathers.  I can remove this obstacle in my path and deal with the consequences, if any.   This gate no longer serves a purpose, and at best, has outlived its purpose.  I make these truth claims based on my own experiences of my short life and my desires.  This gate is also keeping me from being who I want to be.  

But only the character qualities of pride and arrogance will allow someone to destroy something that they don’t understand.

Outside of the Nasdaq, Amex, and NYSE exists an even larger economic market; the derivative market.  This market is valued at $1200 trillion.  The major banks in the US account to $292 trillion of this value. 

This market came to light during the highly publicized $2 billion loss by JP Morgan Chase in the derivative market.  JP Morgan Chase is considered to be one of the most 'risk averse' banks and they are carrying $59 trillion in derivate debts. 

For those interested in the technical details of the 2 billion dollar loss, an article posted on CNBC described exactly how this loss happened....

The failed hedge likely involved a bet on the flattening of a credit derivative curve, part of the CDX family of investment grade credit indices, said two sources with knowledge of the industry, but not directly involved in the matter. JPMorgan was then caught by sharp moves at the long end of the bet, they said. The CDX index gives traders exposure to credit risk across a range of assets, and gets its value from a basket of individual credit derivatives.

In essence, JP Morgan made a series of bets which turned out very, very badly. This loss was so huge that it even caused members of Congress to take note. The following is from a statement that U.S. Senator Carl Levin issued a few hours after this news first broke....

"The enormous loss JPMorgan announced today is just the latest evidence that what banks call 'hedges' are often risky bets that so-called 'too big to fail' banks have no business making."

Unfortunately, the losses from this trade may not be over yet. In fact, if things go very, very badly the losses could end up being much larger as a recent Zero Hedge article detailed....

Simple: because it knew with 100% certainty that if things turn out very, very badly, that the taxpayer, via the Fed, would come to its rescue. Luckily, things turned out only 80% bad. Although it is not over yet: if credit spreads soar, assuming at $200 million DV01, and a 100 bps move, JPM could suffer a $20 billion loss when all is said and done. But hey: at least "net" is not "gross" and we know, just know, that the SEC will get involved and make sure something like this never happens again.

The bottom line is that cracks are beginning to appear in the derivative market.  Everyone in this market was keenly aware that this market was unsustainable, but the short term gains were too much to pass on.  Just as the housing market collapsed...so will the derivative market.  But the housing market bubble was valued at only $9.1 trillion. 

“America is great, because America is good. When America ceases being good, it will cease to be great.” Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’

The Occupy Movement has served a vital purpose. It is a prime example that laws don’t apply evenly to everyone.   In the past 30 years, the person with the best lawyer could get away with murder, now we have entered a new phase in our method of justice in which the person with the right political views can get away with murder.

In San Francisco, when the Occupy mob smashed the plate-glass window of a small business shop, the owner put up some plywood to replace the glass, and the mob wrote graffiti on his plywood. The consequences?  None for the mob, but a citation for the shop owner for not removing the graffiti.

The occupy crowd blocked other people at the University of California-Davis from entering buildings and refused to disperse when called to do so by police. They locked their arms with one another to prevent the police from being able to physically remove them and the police finally resorted to pepper spray to break up this human logjam.

The result? The police were condemned by politicians and the media. Even California’s governor strongly criticized them for enforcing the law. Charges were filed against the officers by the Occupy group. Apparently, pepper spray is unpleasant, and people who break the law are not supposed to have unpleasant things done to them.

Stories of criminal activity at the Occupy rallies in Zuccotti Park in New York and in Washington DC are common. There have been several dozen arrests, but realistically the police allowed the protesters free reign.

How did the “Occupy” movement acquire such immunity from the laws the rest of us are expected to obey? Simply by shouting politically correct slogans and calling themselves representatives of the 99 percent against the 1 percent.

If I decided to smash a store window and spray graffiti on it in broad daylight with video coverage, I would end up in jail…and rightly so. Then why doesn’t the law apply the same to me as it does to the Occupy Movement? 

But just when did the 99 percent elect them as their representatives? If in fact 99 percent of the people in the country were like these “Occupy” mobs, we would not have a country. We would have anarchy.

Everybody is not given these exemptions from paying the consequences of their own illegal acts. Only people who are currently in vogue with the elites of the left – in the media, in politics and in academia.  

The other vital purpose that the Occupy movement served is that if you have the politically correct views, the media will not question the leaders, uncover the sources of funding or investigate the purpose for existing. 

It has been almost a year after the Occupy Movement crashed onto the scene that some enterprising reporter from Newsmax decided to investigate the group; who they were, their funding and their purpose. This idea never occurred to anyone at ABC, NBC, the NY Times, CNN, etc. 

It turns out that the main organizers behind Occupy are Brett Kimberlin along with David Graeber. Brett also happens to be a drug dealer, child molester, and convicted perjurer, forger and the Indiana Speedway Bomber who spent 17 years (of a 50 year sentence) in prison and released in 2000.

 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14728957245347536353&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr 

Upon release, Brett started an organization, the velvet revolution, which morphed into the Occupy Movement.   The Tides Foundation helped Brett launch the Velvet revolution. But then in 2010, the movement took a new direction and the Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million to his cause. This was followed by $1 million each from Barbara Streisand and Theresa Heinz-Kerry.  Other major donors are Fidelity Investments, Schwab Charitable Fund, Farview Foundation and Olive Branch Foundation. This funding helped to recruit Occupy protestors and stage the protests on Wall Street. 

David Graeber is a self-avowed anarchist and refers to himself as ‘a rebel without a god’. He was a professor of anthropology at Yale University until he was released in 2005. Yale gave no formal explanation for his dismissal, but it is widely known that Graeber was just too radical for Yale.  He led student protests at Yale and routinely called for the dissolution of all government. 

In a sane world, these two people would have been summarily dismissed for the moral rot that they represent. But here, in the US, they are given an enormous platform.

Robert Ringer, author and columnist, discussed the Occupy movement with a reporter, "There are some who advocate anarchy however, not because they want no government but because they don't like what they have. They use anarchy as a tool for revolutionary change. The condition of anarchy is very much like a vacuum where something rushes in to fill it. These calculating anarchists work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism. Tragically, the people living in such chaos often go to those best able to put an end to it and beg them to take over and restore order. And who is best able to put an end to the chaos? The very people who started it. The anarchists who created the problem then create a government run by them, an oligarchy, where they have total power."

If everyone takes the path of least resistance – if politicians pander to particular constituencies and judges give only wrist slaps to particular groups or mobs who are currently in vogue, and educators indoctrinate their students with “non-judgmental” attitudes – then the moral infrastructure corrodes and crumbles.

When America’s moral infrastructure fails, the country will need to spend an exorbitant amount of money on policing, laws, prisons, judges and lawyer to combat the moral failings. This money is taken out of society from other necessary obligations. The economic downfall is destined to follow.

We can't fix the economic situation without first fixing the moral situation.  AA recognizes this principle. Only when identifying the root of the problem and addressing the root issue, the moral issue, can the physical changes happen. This is why the plan to "throw money" at America's crumbling infrastructure will not work. By throwing money at the problem it serves only to allow the problem to continue. In life, we call anyone who allows or promotes someone to continue in their self-destruction an enabler. By practicing tough love, we don’t give people what they want. We give them what they need.  When a drug addict begs us for more money, only an enabler will give them money. A person with character and integrity will help them get out from under the dependency of the drug.  

We need to fix the crumbling moral infrastructure. The first step is to recognize that we have a crumbling moral infrastructure and an understanding of where it will lead; a loss of liberty. This must be followed by tough love in which destructive behavior is not tolerated.

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams

 “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Senator and Historian, 55-117 A.D