Obama doesn't have the authority to do that!

Oneidmnster is right. Communism and Socialism have nothing to do with violence. On the small scale there are pockets of communism in the US that exist in a 100% non-violent manner. Hippies practiced communism back in the 70's where everything was shared and their little communes worked for a common good. Those just vanished over time because it's a failed system and on the small scale the failure doesn't hurt like it does on a larger scale like in the Soviet Union.

@nturecamo. Just to set the record straight ;) 1. The Communist Manifesto calls Communism the end result where the world works together in a utopian style system of working as one. 2. Socialism is the first step and Socialism is the result of revolution which is the violent overthrow word you were looking for. 3. It is impossible to say who has the majority in this country. If you asked people in this country who they wanted to vote for before the final selection of the 2 candidates, most people would have said someone other than Obama or McCain. Also you cant say that he has the majority now because all the polls that are done show he has a minimal lead against 3 of the major candidates in the GOP, therefore you could say that if 2 of them drop out, which as you know is gonna happen, and they throw their support behind one candidate, Obama would not even be close to the majority in those precious polls everyone loves to look at.

1) Communism requires a violent overthrow of the government. No such thing has happened. 2) Socialism, the non-violent form of Communism, requires the state to be in complete control over the means of production. The last I checked, McDonalds is still privately owned. 3) It's not a bunch of idiots; it's the majority of the voting population of the American people. Just because you don't agree with their choice doesn't make them idiots.

But in doing it he has already violated his oath of office and broken the law.

Actually, the simple act of instituting an unconstitutional act is not considered a violation of the oath of office or the law. The proper procedure is that it goes through the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court says "you can't do that", and then they stop doing it or they're THEN in violation of the law.

Actually, that is not true. Every elected official (as well as appointed, hired, enlisted and commissioned) of the United States government (as well as state and local) takes an oath to uphold the constitution. So, in reality, knowingly committing any unconstitutional act is a violation of that oath. The US Supreme Court is the "Court of Last Resort", not the first line defense. There is no language anywhere in the US Constitution that backs up the myth that you just repeated. No one has the authority to violate the US or their State Constitutions. To do so is to shirk their own responsibilities.

See the problem is that Obama thinks that everyone is just as self-centered as he is. He doesn't realize that other people are actually looking at the big picture and can see that if he is willing to unilaterally force the catholic church to violate its tenets, he'll be just as willing to violate jews, muslims, wiccans, and any other group whose core beliefs and practices aren't 100% in line with his agenda. He just banked on the fact that the vast majority of women use birth control, want it readily available, and want it free. He just assumed that all those women would be perfectly comfortable violating the first amendment to get it. He was wrong.

From forums where I've been, Christians and Jews are all up in arms about this. The Catholics were just the first and the loudest to speak out. The head of the Southern Baptists said he's 100% with the Catholics on this. What people don't seem to realize is that this is not just about Catholic hospitals, but about every church and religious organization. My church is not going to provide insurance to someone if it means they'll get contraceptives (and that includes abortions) for free. It's not going to happen. So....if they drop insurance and pay the fine...it's playing right into the left's hand. They wanted to get rid of private insurance all along. And, it applies to any employer whose beliefs are that contraceptives and abortion should not be his/her responsibility to pay.

Is this an Executive Order or was it a new Regulation under his Health Care Mandate? If it is a rule it has the same effect as if Congress Passed into law unless the Congress or the Courts change it.

He really has abused the "executive order" because most Americans are too ignorant to realize how little a president can do with one. He can't legislate with an executive order, nor can he violate the constitution or block legislation that is already in place. The problem is that if nobody challenges illegal executive orders, they just become law by default.

Coffee Break, fist of all, it's not an executive order, it's being submitted to Congress. Next, while the Prs. does have the authority to use executive orders, no executive order can violate or negate an existing law. Also, when Obamacare was being debated in Congress, Obama said that religious organizations had nothing to fear, because of the exemption in the bill. In other words, more lies from the liar in chief.

Ok, now that nturecamo has filled you with his ignorance, I'll let you in on what's going on. The fact is, it has nothing to do with emergency contraception for rape victims at all. The facts are, there is a provision in Obamacare that (when fully implemented) will require all group medical plans to include contraception and elective abortion coverage for all women. There is an exemption in the law for the employees of religious institutions (the one part that nturecamo got right. Obama announced that he would introduce legislation that would lift that exemption. Meaning all religious institutions would have to pay for contraception and elective abortion, even if it goes against their doctrine. Well, of, course, he took a lot of heat for this blatant attack on the 1st Amendment, so he claimed to offer a "compromise". This "compromise" was that religious institutions wouldn't be required to pay for contraception and elective abortion, but the group insurance carriers that cover their employees would still be forced to include them in their coverage. In other words, the religious institutions wouldn't have to supply these, but they would still have to pay for the coverage. The part that Obama is hoping no one notices is, most of the bigger religious institutions are SELF INSURED. Which means, even with the "compromise", they would still be forced to violate their own tenets. The other thing Obama is hoping no one remembers is, the inclusion of the exemption for religious institutions was one of the things Obama himself stated would protect them from having to go against their own doctrines. In other words.. He lied.. again!

**sorry, a virgin or a female that is not currently sexually active

The current law states that all groups which provide medical services to individuals be required to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. The only exception was churches, because it is against their religion and this would clearly violate the constitution regardless of how it is interpreted. The catholic church, however, has railed against this requirement, because the exception is not applied to religious hospitals and schools, which means that you may very well have institutions run bye religious organizations providing contraception, which is against their religion. Constitutionally, this is right on the borderline. However, the Obama Administration has recently said they are going to extend the exception to include religious hospitals and schools, so actually this is a moot point.

Ahh, this resolves my ignorance mentioned above. Thank you. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which was a major amendment to our constitution in 1982) has several sub-sections that outline similar freedoms.

I've tried so hard to remain neutral about Obama but he sure makes it difficult. Unfreakingbelievable!!

Thank you nturecamo. It is a direct assault on the 1st Amendment. And here we thought the First Amendment was one of the few parts of the US Constitution Obama had any interest in.