Safe Mode: On
Boehner: Obama’s Attack On Religious Freedom ‘Will Not Stand’

Well it's about time someone does their job and reigns in Obummer. It is the responsibility for those sworn to uphold the Constitution to actually uphold the Constitution.

Loading the player ...
Embed Code
Plays: 592 (Embed: 0)

Added: Feb-8-2012 Occurred On: Feb-7-2012
By: Snarfums
In: Politics
Tags: boehner, catholic church, health care, forced, abortion
Marked as: approved
Views: 712 | Comments: 77 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Comment of user 'StopTheCancer' has been deleted by author!
  • Comment of user 'firetatoo' has been deleted by author!

  • The usual Boener bullshit. He'll talk like he plans to do something to stop the Obama anti-US juggernaut, and then he won't do a fucking thing except cry and have a smoke, the fucking spineless two-faced cock-sucker.

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    TheMule (1246.30)

    (1)

    • @TheMule LOL you beat me too it. I was thinking the same thing. He talks this sh*t but then lets obama get away with it. All these "Go along,get along" RINOS in the party need to be sent packing,along with ALL democrats.

      Posted Feb-9-2012 By 
      555chevy (1083.58)  

      (1)

  • "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    Clearly forcing Catholic institutions to fund abortion and contraception prohibits the free exercise of their religion.

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    hdadd (258.00)  

    (1)

    • @hdadd

      Wrong. They are an employer period. Religion plays no part in it.

      Its insurance, that's all.

      Do they have to follow minimum wage laws?

      If you work for them doesn't mean that you follow their beliefs.

      It is strictly a labor law, nothing else.

      Now if the country moved away from employer based health insurance they won't have to worry about it.

      Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
      dcmfox (30743.36)  

      (-1)

    • @dcmfox Wrong yourself.

      Under Catholicism, destroying an unborn child is a cardinal sin. Minimum wages are not.

      Hundreds of waivers are given to religious institutions on constitutional grounds.

      If the federal government can't tax Catholic institutions, it certainly can not order them to fund what they consider cardinal sin.

      Hard to believe our constitutional scholar president interferes with free exercise of religion, continued illegal Bush Guantanamo Bay detentions, murdered an American c More..

      Posted Feb-9-2012 By 
      hdadd (258.00)  

      (0)

    • @hdadd

      Well I have heard two constitutional Professor's that disagree. I think I will believe them.

      Birth control pills are not abortion. So the cardinal sin argument isn't at play.

      Yes catholic's don't believe in contraception, (which was a main reason I left) which this is about, not abortion.

      Posted Feb-9-2012 By 
      dcmfox (30743.36)  

      (0)

    • @dcmfox Catholics believe contraception is a sin. Therefore the federal government has no right to force them to pay for contraception.

      Posted Feb-10-2012 By 
      hdadd (258.00)  

      (0)

  • Boner the loner...nobody gives a fuck about this douche!

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    mannixxx (647.54)  

    (1)

  • Boner is like us all. He has his opinion and we have ours. As far as religion is concerned, I find it the greatest represser of freedom ever devised by men, men who use it for one reason only, POWER. Religion is the greatest single roadblock to the advancement of mankind.

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    downhill2400 (1305.58)

    (1)

  • I see this got the religion haters and liberal loons panties in a bunch.

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    laserblast92 (606.94)

    (1)

  • Freedom of religion...
    Yeah, you have the freedom NOT to choose the Planned Parenthood services within your church too.



    Any faithful Christian would use those services anyhow. Even Christ had temptations and didn't act on them.

    Funny how the churches gladly accept money, and accept Catholic school vouchers funded from the STATE.

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    Rhemis (962.18)  

    (1)

  • Don't worry, religious mental health care is covered.

    These are the same fuckwits that withdraw condom use because it might lead to promiscuity, then realise that people will shag anyway regardless and spread all sorts of STD's.

    What puzzles me though, is why their deity isn't taking care of all their sexual misdemeanours? Oh wait, it couldn't be... No, it just couldn't... It couldn't be that it's all a fairy tale surely?

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    CargeLock (1977.32)  

    (1)

  • Quick question-- Is the Catholic church going to refuse to provide Type 2 diabetes medications in its insurance plans, too? Afterall, Gluttony is a sin, and getting fat is a side effect of choosing to overeat just as much as being pregnant is a side effect of choosing to fuck. Or are they just cherry picking things that suit their bullshit political agenda?

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    picklethepug (1261.86)

    (0)

  • wtf

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    ak49 (112.66)

    (0)

  • Is there a amendment in the US constitution that Obama hasn't tried to subvert?

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    laserblast92 (606.94)

    (0)

    • @laserblast92 He's been pretty consistently clear of any kind of subversion of the first 27 amendments, but there might be some that I'm unaware of.

      For the record, when "In God We Trust" comes off my money, I'll let the government get involved in my ideology of religion. Presently, they're breaching our constitution by forcing me to spend money with a fucking toss-off to an imaginary deity.

      Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
      mistamista (131.80)

      (0)

  • Distortion and hogwash

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    Satyrman (22.48)  

    (0)

  • So by requiring institutions to provide these services if they are to receive federal dollars it is an attack on religion. How about the park 51 mosque? I don't seem him defending the Muslims religious rights.

    Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
    neutral_person (157.92)  

    (0)

    • @neutral_person I didn't think the government subsidized religious organizations.

      Posted Feb-8-2012 By 
      Ithinkthat1 (1240.30)  

      (0)

    • @Ithinkthat1 In a way they did. Ever notice how some religious organizations host MADD or 12 step programs? These are subsidized by the goverment. Any services which are community based can apply for grant money from the government.

      Posted Feb-9-2012 By 
      neutral_person (157.92)  

      (0)

  • Comment of user 'Ithinkthat1' has been deleted by author!