The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (14 page)
Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
6.06Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Some of these threats are already evident today. For example, Cisco Systems terminated its business relationship with consultant Dr. Frank Turek, who had been conducting leadership and team building programs with them for years, after they discovered, based on an employee’s complaint, that he had written a book years ago arguing against same-sex marriage. Shortly thereafter, Bank of America fired Turek as well. Turek said, “I get a lot of flak for just actually agreeing with what a majority of Americans agree on and that is that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
27
As another example, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission prosecuted a local photography business that turned down an opportunity to film a same-sex commitment ceremony because of the owners’ religious convictions.
28
27
As another example, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission prosecuted a local photography business that turned down an opportunity to film a same-sex commitment ceremony because of the owners’ religious convictions.
28
Messner has described another already-occurring form of discrimination against religious groups. Certain independent or nontraditional religious groups, called “parachurches,” which hire those who subscribe to the same religious views, could face civil liability for religious discrimination for firing those they discover do not hold to their views.
29
In just such a situation, two former employees sued World Vision, a Christian charity, after being fired for no longer following the group’s religious commitments. While a federal appellate court ruled against the former employees, one judge indicated he would deem it discrimination for a prospective employer to prefer his coreligionists over others.
30
29
In just such a situation, two former employees sued World Vision, a Christian charity, after being fired for no longer following the group’s religious commitments. While a federal appellate court ruled against the former employees, one judge indicated he would deem it discrimination for a prospective employer to prefer his coreligionists over others.
30
These are not isolated examples; after studying some 1,000 state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, or marital status, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty concluded that more than “350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.”
31
“EXTREME,” “UNTENABLE,” AND “REMARKABLE”31
There are other signs of this administration’s lack of commitment to religious liberty. In October 2011, Obama’s Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to approve a lawsuit that would force a parochial Lutheran school to violate its long-held, religiously based policy not to hire teachers who had violated its rule against resorting to lawsuits to resolve disputes. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical School, a K-8 school in Redford, Michigan, replaced a teacher, Cheryl Perich, after she was diagnosed with narcolepsy and was unable to teach for two semesters. In January 2005, Perich threatened to sue unless she was reinstated. The church told Perich that such a lawsuit would violate its conflict resolution policy that forbids “called” employees resolving disputes in secular court. When Perich allegedly repeated her threat to sue, the congregation voted to rescind her call.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepped in and filed a complaint against the church under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging the church “retaliated” against Perich for pursuing a lawsuit. The church, however, insisted its decision was simply based on beliefs held by orthodox Lutherans for centuries. The Obama Justice Department then weighed in on Perich’s behalf, as did Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists Inc., which filed amicus briefs siding with the administration against the church.
32
32
The DOJ’s position contradicted forty years of precedent in lower courts, which have generally recognized a ministerial exception to job-discrimination laws that protects the religious freedom of entities to hire and fire their own leaders.
33
The exception allows religious entities to give “preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion” and to “require that all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization.”
34
33
The exception allows religious entities to give “preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion” and to “require that all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization.”
34
So what about this case warranted the DOJ’s involvement? The intervention of the two atheist organizations is instructive; their goal clearly was not to protect a single aggrieved employee, but to attack the church’s policy against resorting to courts to resolve disputes, a policy based on the New Testament book of 1
st
Corinthians.
st
Corinthians.
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, even liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed incredulous when the DOJ’s lawyer, Leondra Kruger, said she thought neither of the First Amendment’s two religion clauses—the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause—applied to this case, and that it was the First Amendment’s freedom of association that was at issue. Kagan said she found that argument “amazing.” In response to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts, Kruger said it would make “no difference whether the entity was a religious group, a labor group or any other association of individuals.” This prompted Justice Antonin Scalia to exclaim, “That’s extraordinary. That is extraordinary. We are talking about the free exercise clause and about the establishment clause and you say they have no special application?”
35
35
In January, the Supreme Court, in what the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty called “its most important religious liberty case in twenty years,” ruled against the Obama administration in a unanimous 9 - 0 decision, holding that the view of religious liberty it presented was “extreme,” “untenable,” and “remarkable.” The Court unambiguously declared that religious groups should be allowed to choose their leaders free from government interference. Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at the Becket Fund, proclaimed, “This is a huge victory for religious freedom and a rebuke to the government, which was trying to regulate how churches select their ministers.”
36
A PREDETERMINED CONCLUSION ON GAYS IN THE MILITARY36
When Obama began his push to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays in the military, the liberal media dutifully reported that the armed forces’ top brass fully endorsed his policy. In reality, while some officers such as Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did publicly support the repeal, others from the Army, Air Force, and Marines clearly did not. “We sometimes ask Marines what is their preference and I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person that is openly homosexual,” said former Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway.
37
Similarly, then-Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said, “I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars. We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”
38
37
Similarly, then-Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said, “I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars. We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”
38
The administration buttressed its case for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell via the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG)—a large-scale survey of military members that found repealing the policy was unlikely to harm military effectiveness or cause disruptions. However, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense concluded that an executive summary of the group’s findings was prepared
before
the soldiers were even questioned on the matter. Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that Congress “was deceived, probably deliberately, by those with a pro-repeal agenda.” The CRWG’s purpose, said Donnelly, “was to circumvent and neutralize military opposition to repeal of the law.”
39
before
the soldiers were even questioned on the matter. Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that Congress “was deceived, probably deliberately, by those with a pro-repeal agenda.” The CRWG’s purpose, said Donnelly, “was to circumvent and neutralize military opposition to repeal of the law.”
39
She said the Inspector General’s investigation concluded that the CRWG study was “a publicly-funded, prescripted production put on just for show” to create “an illusion of support” for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The IG report also found that a person with “a strongly emotional attachment to the issue” and “likely a pro-repeal agenda” leaked misleading information to the
Washington Post
in violation of security rules. Following that alleged leak, the
Post
reported that the survey had found that 70 percent of active-duty and reserve troops were not troubled by repeal. Partly as a result of this apparent fabrication, Congress rushed through the vote on repeal during its lame-duck session in December 2010, and Obama quickly signed it into law, though delaying its implementation for one year. The Obama administration, said Donnelly, “misused military personnel, funds, and facilities to help President Obama to deliver on political promises to gay activists at the expense of trusting troops who became unknowing props in the pro-repeal campaign.”
40
Washington Post
in violation of security rules. Following that alleged leak, the
Post
reported that the survey had found that 70 percent of active-duty and reserve troops were not troubled by repeal. Partly as a result of this apparent fabrication, Congress rushed through the vote on repeal during its lame-duck session in December 2010, and Obama quickly signed it into law, though delaying its implementation for one year. The Obama administration, said Donnelly, “misused military personnel, funds, and facilities to help President Obama to deliver on political promises to gay activists at the expense of trusting troops who became unknowing props in the pro-repeal campaign.”
40
In his statement celebrating the Repeal Act, Obama said that ending the policy “would enhance our national security (and) increase our military readiness.” This hardly reflected a consensus view. Marine Corps Commandant James Amos warned that the change could impact discipline, erode unit cohesiveness, and ultimately cost lives. As Family Research Council president Tony Perkins noted, “The American military exists for one purpose—to fight and win wars. Yet, today, the U.S. military became a tool in reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality. Using the military to advance a liberal social agenda will only do harm to the military’s ability to fulfill its mission.”
41
THE41
REAL
ANTI-SCIENCE PRESIDENT
President Obama has aggressively supported embryonic stem cell research—a controversial process that involves destroying human embryos. Pro-life advocates oppose the procedure on various grounds including moral ones, citing reports that companies have used aborted fetal cell lines—human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby—to test their products.
42
President George W. Bush limited federal funding of such research to a small number of cell lines created before August 9, 2001. Any cell lines created since then were off-limits to federal funds, which in no way precluded privately funded research.
42
President George W. Bush limited federal funding of such research to a small number of cell lines created before August 9, 2001. Any cell lines created since then were off-limits to federal funds, which in no way precluded privately funded research.
In keeping with his campaign promise, President Obama, through executive order, lifted the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, publicly affirming his well-known affinity for active government intervention in science. Urging him to re-evaluate his decision, Congressman John Boehner said, “The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life,” while Congressman Eric Cantor warned that “federal funding on embryonic stem cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning.”
43
43
A coalition filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify Obama’s executive order and enjoin federally funded research. On August 23, 2010, a U.S. District Judge granted a preliminary injunction to the coalition,
44
but it was lifted about a month later by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The panel bought the Justice Department’s argument that enjoining these activities would cause irreparable harm to this kind of research, even though privately funded research could continue freely. The panel also seemed to ignore the demonstrably poor scientific track record at issue: reportedly, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells,
45
and the research is fraught with problems when used to treat animals.
46
44
but it was lifted about a month later by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The panel bought the Justice Department’s argument that enjoining these activities would cause irreparable harm to this kind of research, even though privately funded research could continue freely. The panel also seemed to ignore the demonstrably poor scientific track record at issue: reportedly, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells,
45
and the research is fraught with problems when used to treat animals.
46
Adult stem cell research, which should be less controversial because it does not involve destroying human embryos, has been much more effective, being used to treat more than a hundred diseases and medical conditions.
47
But so militant is Obama’s anti-life agenda that on the same day he lifted President Bush’s ban on federal funding of embryonic research, he also rescinded Bush’s executive order to fund adult stem cell research. Bioethics attorney Wesley J. Smith said Obama’s action showed that he, not his predecessor, is the anti-science president, “Of course, the administration didn’t have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work,” said Smith. “But the now dead order explicitly required funding for alternative methods such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness.” Smith continued, “I can think of only two reasons for this action, for which I saw no advocacy either in the election or during the first weeks of the Administration. First, vindictiveness against all things ‘Bush’ or policies considered by the Left to be ‘pro-life’ and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest.”
48
MAKING ABORTION RARE? HARDLY47
But so militant is Obama’s anti-life agenda that on the same day he lifted President Bush’s ban on federal funding of embryonic research, he also rescinded Bush’s executive order to fund adult stem cell research. Bioethics attorney Wesley J. Smith said Obama’s action showed that he, not his predecessor, is the anti-science president, “Of course, the administration didn’t have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work,” said Smith. “But the now dead order explicitly required funding for alternative methods such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness.” Smith continued, “I can think of only two reasons for this action, for which I saw no advocacy either in the election or during the first weeks of the Administration. First, vindictiveness against all things ‘Bush’ or policies considered by the Left to be ‘pro-life’ and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest.”
48
Obama has often repeated the mantra, common among Democrats, that he wants to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”
49
His silver-tongued assurances even persuaded such staunch pro-life advocates as former Reagan Justice Department official Doug Kmiec that Obama would be more pro-life in practice than many outspoken pro-life politicians. Kmiec was apparently unmoved that Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”—a bill that would eliminate federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion. Of course, Obama’s position often changes, depending on his audience. In the weeks leading up to his vaunted commencement address at Notre Dame, where he sought to portray himself as a reasonable moderate on the abortion issue, he said the Freedom of Choice Act “is not the highest legislative priority.”
50
Little did his audience know his administration would later deny a government grant to the Catholic Church for helping human trafficking victims, a move widely attributed to the Church’s anti-abortion position.
51
49
His silver-tongued assurances even persuaded such staunch pro-life advocates as former Reagan Justice Department official Doug Kmiec that Obama would be more pro-life in practice than many outspoken pro-life politicians. Kmiec was apparently unmoved that Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”—a bill that would eliminate federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion. Of course, Obama’s position often changes, depending on his audience. In the weeks leading up to his vaunted commencement address at Notre Dame, where he sought to portray himself as a reasonable moderate on the abortion issue, he said the Freedom of Choice Act “is not the highest legislative priority.”
50
Little did his audience know his administration would later deny a government grant to the Catholic Church for helping human trafficking victims, a move widely attributed to the Church’s anti-abortion position.
51
Indeed, many of Obama’s subsequent actions would show just how immoderate he is on the abortion issue. Not only does he not apologize for abortion, he proudly celebrates it as a woman’s sacred right. While many Christians and others of faith consider abortion in America to be a stain on our nation’s moral record, Obama publicly commemorated the thirty-ninth anniversary of
Roe v. Wade
as a “historic anniversary.” He said, “We must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”
52
Roe v. Wade
as a “historic anniversary.” He said, “We must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”
52
Other books
Demanding the Impossible by Slavoj Zizek
Tropical Convergence by Melissa Good
The Immortal Realm by Frewin Jones
First Test by Tamora Pierce
The Realest Ever by Walker, Keith Thomas
Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
Running With The Big Dogs: Sybil Norcroft Book Six by Carl Douglass
The Long Walk: A Story of War and the Life That Follows by Brian Castner
One True Thing by Piper Vaughn