opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
12 Feb 2016
David Brooks and Obama's Ongoing Pant Crease

If you read The New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks, you might better grasp the chasm … Read More.

9 Feb 2016
Fear Not, My Secular Friends

It amuses me that certain people are convinced that Christians are angry scolds but totally miss the … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
Ted Cruz and the Body of Christ

There is a misplaced fear — shared, I'm sad to say, by many on the right — that Christian … Read More.

Obama Invites Backlash on Conscience Rule Betrayal


As God's instrument, Moses parted the Red Sea. Well, it appears President Obama has a different idea. With a wave of his hand, he's going to reunite our bitterly divided political waters on the hottest of hot-button issues.

Don't get me wrong; Obama's conscious effort to divide Americans on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and wealth for political purposes is alive and thriving. That's a separate phenomenon.

What I'm talking about here is his apparent conviction that by sheer force of his presence, his charisma, his aura and his gift for supernatural nuance, he can utter magical words on any bitterly controversial matter and instantly reconcile opposing factions, even on matters that do not lend themselves to neat solutions.

This exaggerated sense of self-worth, not just his visceral liberal inclination toward appeasement, is what leads him to believe he can negotiate with terrorists and persuade them to renounce their jihad against America upon witnessing his world apology tour, his outreach to Muslims in Cairo, his witch hunt against CIA interrogators, and his shoutouts to the Muslim Brotherhood. (Don't tell him, but polls show he's even less popular than President George W. Bush was in the Muslim world.)

His stunning absence of any awareness of his own limitations (Socrates' wisdom yardstick) is obviously what convinced him he could deliver a speech at the University of Notre Dame that would induce a bilateral epiphany in which both sides of the abortion debate would finally realize that until he had deconstructed the issue so elegantly, they had been looking through the abortion glass darkly. Henceforth, they would see clearly and bask in the glow of harmonic convergence where pro-life advocates would appreciate the bizarre concept of a mother's sacred reproductive rights and the pro-aborts would come to understand, er, never mind. Only one side in these arguments needs to show movement — the side that opposes Obama's beliefs.

This robust arrogance is what made Obama believe he could convince freedom-loving Americans that they would love socialized health care. You'd think he might have been discouraged when they still didn't embrace it after 54 speeches, but trapped in his own self-perpetuating personal echo chamber, he had no other options but to keep pummeling us with his propaganda until he decided to just bribe, cheat and steal in order to get the bill crammed through. Through it all, he never lost faith in his ability to place square pegs into round holes.

So it is that we read in The Washington Post that Obama thinks he can lull us into kumbaya over his death-culture assault on Americans' religious liberty with his rule requiring religious institutions to cover contraception as part of their employee health plans.

This mandate would require all employers, including religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals that receive federal funds, to provide female employees the full breadth of health care coverage, including birth control, the "morning-after pill" and sterilization services. He deceitfully promised in that Notre Dame speech, by the way, that he would respect the conscience rights of religious institutions and that he would not invoke this abominable rule that he is now vigorously and defiantly embracing.

Once again, he must think he can placate opponents by patting them on the head and telling them they just need to settle down, see the superior wisdom and morality of his position, and understand that everything will be fine if they'll just believe in him. Yes, that's right; the Post reports that administration officials are telling liberal groups and lawmakers that Obama is not backing down from his hard-line position on the rule, but assuring "religious groups that a phase-in period will allow the two sides to agree on an approach to putting the rule into practice."

You see, in Obama's grandiose world — in which rhetoric, sophism and endless speechifying reign supreme — every impasse can be breached with his miraculously penetrating silver tongue.

But this time, as has been increasingly the case for the hapless, unreflective Obama, his obfuscation will not work. As Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "so far, (the administration's promise to) 'work this thing through' is just the sugar-coated version of 'force you to comply.'"

Indeed, this authoritarian administration prohibited a Catholic Army chaplain from reading a letter by Timothy Broglio — archbishop of the Military Services, USA — criticizing the mandate because with it, "the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States" in a way that is "denying Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty."

One way or another — either by backing down or by facing an electoral spanking — Obama will not win this one. With the backlash he is inviting, he might finally learn the limits of his mythical magic.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



2 Comments | Post Comment
If the Catholic Church can have a dispensation from laws was which apply to all Americans, then Mormons have the religious right to polygamy.

Comment: #1
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:37 AM
"If an employer receives taxpayer-provided money to provide services -- as educational institutions do when they accept Pell grants or federally guaranteed student loans, and as hospitals do when they receive Medicare and Medicaid payments -- should that employer still be allowed to exempt its employees from provisions of federal health care law?
When a Catholic organization hires employees from the general public, offers services to the general public, and accepts government money for those services, it should not be allowed to impose its theological conditions on its employees' health care choices by refusing to cover contraception. That is not religious freedom; that is religious imperialism and comes dangerously close to the "establishment of religion" that is prohibited by the Constitution."
Comment: #2
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:19 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
David Limbaugh
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 12 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 12 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 12 Feb 2016

16 Mar 2007 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Even Think It"

20 Oct 2009 Barack's Enemies List

16 Feb 2012 Conservatives Must Remain United