May 2021
« Feb    
Filed under: POLITICS
Posted by: JP HOGAN @ 1:55 pm

Obama’s Lew flushed - flushed out to a dumping on Catholic Church today.  President’s “mouth piece” Chief of Staff Lew offered at least on Fox News Sunday that President’s “principles” are better than Church’s Principles.

My Facebook “status” posts automatically post on my twid @jphoganorg as tweets - This morning Lew on “principles” proclamation as existent in President as other than Catholic and even that of Bible suggested that their Catholic experts were smarter and more right than that of American Catholic Bishops, of Holy See of Pope.

“Twid” = twitter ID (a word I may have invented).

The following are some of what Obama’s Lew seemed to spill out today as if of a complete “principles.” >>

J Peter Hogan
*–@BarackObama — A Book of your Principles? Hmmm, now after Lew
seems such will have to explain your Constitutional skill as about explaining
your Free Sex - Drugs MANDATE doesn’t offer a prejudice and bias if not also
then for those most at risk of AIDS from personal behavior for free AIDS
medicine as a prophylactic to allow them few or no concerns while about
their freedoms. FREE TOO - A without any pre-existing condition bias
allowed. Right? Correct Constitutional interpretation?

*–In the Lew comments a suggestion of President of PRINCIPLES - better
Principles than Catholic Church & its American Bishops - But Obama
book - book of principles? Ok, not “Bible” that taken - “Trible” maybe?
but seems Obama’s Principles being air as “Ible.”

*–Seems that if President is to a “right” to sex - drugs he is then to be
endowed - all future Presidents to mandate a “not in the mood” too.
Can’t say that would be free or less expensive - just that a right to
provide a drug for sex presupposes a right to mandate a pill to “kill
the lust” and “prevent the mood.”

*–Obama could offer rightly concern Catholic Bishops a “pill” alternative for
related sex freedoms - a pill made for mentioned but with something in
it to create a hyper moral paranoia when “stimulated.”

*–No, Obama’s free sex & drug principle for insurance mandates cannot be
free or “less expensive” as Lew flushes — reducing risks for risky
behavior should increase risky behavior and have more people paying for
others increased practice of risky behavior and for products and
services at first claimed important for being too expensive for
“consumers” of Obama’s “sex drugs” implications.

So now to catch up with your thinking let me try to understand how the Catholic Church was supportive of such, so it seemed at least as a right of states, not of State.  We have the economics I am better able to be writting about with some erudition - we have that President Obama is trying to make charity mandatory and of a Government See - his, and, that American Catholic Church is still based upon voluntary charity.

Economically speaking:  We have that even the Church and our religious institutions of America the original providers, and able to cope with such as they did before some of theirs in their own community found new extraordinarily expensive ways to expand the costs of their charity.

Economically speaking:  We have that just the Catholic Charity that was one of our historically original health care providers may have thought that if Government would pay for some of what had been mostly handled by communities willing to gather and sing and have shame exposed (politely?) then they would be free to spend money otherwise, and have it cost them less.

Economically speaking:  Our Governments since such started have like the idea of getting to play the hero with charity more than they should been allowed or permitted themselves and offering of.  We have that once our Government became a player that it may have started costing our communities and their houses of worship too much by making their value seem diminished and so to a reduction near to obsolescence of its relativity and attractiveness.  Did our first Government establishments to such assumption of presumption to Christian Charity and the likes begin a depreciation of our communities houses of worship and establishments to a moral continuum maintained locally such that a shifting of healthcare costs did costs such too much?

Economically speaking:  Did the first passing of the buck by our houses of worship even though if just to states, not State, amount to the beginning of the end of “affordable” care?  When whence the “religious” community organizing tried to see if their job would become less expensive if they did shift costs for such community moral maintenance to Government did they allow State a dangerous and expensive hand in what had been their keep or kitty?  Did our community faith organizations end up losing membership and thus revenues needed to sustain important community endeavors exactly because they attempted to let Government play at their alters?

J Peter Hogan

*–Politically speaking:  Is President Obama trying to outlaw the seven deadly sins?  - Remove “premeditation” from conscious human behavior?

Comments are closed.