jump to navigation

The most anti-Catholic president in US history December 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.

Barack Hussein Obama, our first communist-raised president, has displayed an antipathy towards the Church that is just startling throughout his administration.  Two recent episodes just highlight this very disdainful attitude towards the Church.  The first is the closure of the US Embassy at the Vatican, allegedly on security grounds.  This, according to former US Ambassador to the Vatican James Nicholson, was driven equally by Obama’s disregard for the Church, and the increasingly anti-Christian views of the deeply embedded – and dominant – progressive elements in the State Department:

“It’s another manifestation of the antipathy of this administration both to Catholics and to the Vatican – and to Christians in the Middle East. This is a key post for intermediation in so many sovereignties but particularly in the Middle East. This is anything but a good time to diminish the stature of this post. To diminish the stature of this post is to diminish its influence.

“The State Department has for a long time wanted to do this. It came up when I was an ambassador. I explained the folly of this and it went away. But now they seem determined to do this. The perception is [with this action] that the United States is showing a lack of appreciation for the relevance of its diplomatic partner in the Vatican.” 

But coupled with this latent Church bias in the State Department is the Obama administration’s own internal biases against the Church.  These biases are most evident in Obama’s incredibly strident support for abortion and the forced dissemination of contraceptives around the world, all at US taxpayer expense.  This ties in the other repressive, anti-Catholic action taken by the Obama administration I wanted to mention – the HHS Mandate. In an extremely revealing article at the Washington Examiner, Timothy Carney reveals that the HHS contraceptive mandate is largely a kick-back to huge drug companies like Merck and Phizer for their massive lobbying efforts in favor of Obamacare:

The audacity and mendacity with which the Obama administration defends its illegal contraception mandate is standard fare for politics. What’s distinctively Obamian in this fight is the insidious corporatism underlying it all.

Look at the contraception mandate from almost any angle, and you see the corporatism. Sometimes it’s on the surface, and sometimes it’s implicit in the arguments.

The contraception mandate is nakedly a huge subsidy to the industry that most firmly supported Obamacare: the drugmakers.

The drug industry has spent more on lobbying under Obama than any other industry. Top lobbyists at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in 2009 met behind closed doors with the White House and Senate Democrats, promising political support for Democrats in exchange for friendly provisions in Obamacare.

Top Obama bundler Sally Susman oversees the lobbying shop at drug giant Pfizer, which sells $7.6 million a year in name-brand birth control pills, while also selling contraceptive injections and generic drugs. Pfizer’s CEO during the Obamacare debate was Obama donor Jeffrey Kindler. In a corporate filing, the company justified his salary increase by pointing to his Obamacare lobbying.

Obama’s contraception mandate requires all employer-sponsored health care plans to cover 100 percent of the cost of all FDA-approved contraception. [And this, of course, includes the coverage offered by the Catholic Church to its myriad employees and agencies in this country]  That gives customers incentives to choose Pfizer’s name-brand pills, because the entire cost is passed onto employers and thus onto customers and colleagues. And of course, this means more profit for Pfizer.

Hey, Obama wants his “signature health care law” passed, no matter what.  If a few million Catholic consciences have to get hurt in the process, that’s a small price to pay for the advance of socialism, right?

I would also be remiss if I did not mention Obama’s reflexive, almost obeisant support for the pro-abort lobby, which is also the pro-contracept lobby.  Tie all these things together, and we have the most anti-Catholic president in US history, and even the most anti-Catholic major politician in about a century.  All is done stealthily, under the cover of corporatist socialist wealth transfer schemes and concerns over alleged security failings – concerns which came far too late for several Americans in Benghazi in 2011. Which concerns are just ludicrous political cover for an anti-Catholic bias, anyway – can you imagine the US closing its embassy in Switzerland and relocating it to Germany?  It would never happen.  The Swiss (or whomever) are “valued partners in X, Y, and Z.”  There would never be even an intimation of doing so.  But when it comes to the Church and the sovereign Vatican City state, that’s entirely different.  Who cares about the Vatican, anyway?

That latent anti-Catholicism built into the fabric of this protestant-founded nation is never very far from the surface.


1. DiscipleoftheDumbOx - December 3, 2013

Texas should close its doors to Mordor-on-the-Potomoc and send her own ambassador to the Vatican. Our senators and representatives should be called back permanently. There. Independence achieved. Is that so hard?

2. Catholic Glasses - December 3, 2013

Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
Doesn’t surprise me. Obama lies a lot. He does not live in Truth.

3. rosa - December 4, 2013

Obama is simply a mirror image of too large a part of the Catholic hierarchy.

4. sandra dipasqua - December 4, 2013

The moving of the Vatican Embassy was planned under President George Bush Jr. The new building took years to prepare and is finally ready, hence the move. Your second argument is much more interesting, as the influence of the drug companies have run rampant through our society. Why does no one ever dispute the coverage of viagra and cialis along with coverage of birth control?

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: