Watch: House Explodes As Police Execute Search Warrant in Northern Virginia
Were We Wrong About John Fetterman?
Democrats Embrace Mental Illness in the Name of Diversity
The NY Times Blames You for Shoplifting
Vivek Ramaswamy Gets FBI Weaponization Very Wrong…Again
Kilmeade's Book on Booker T. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt Is Excellent
A Disappointing Non-Debate
Green Groups Are No Longer Promoting a Cleaner Environment
Arizona, the Republican Party, and Its Discontents
Kamala Harris Talks Climate As Houthis Attack US Navy Vessel
Dear 'Legacy Media,' the Calls of Authoritarianism are Coming from Inside the (White)...
The World Is Waking Up to the Consequences of Mass Migration. Will America?
Fact: Enlisted Troops Make Great Officers
Legal Hunting Reduces Deer Collisions and Should Be Encouraged
American Thought Control Through Coercion

Our Father Who Art Obama

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

A disturbing bit of news came out of the President's decision to sign our newest defense bill into law. The sizable bill ($633 Billion) covers the majority of the appropriations needed to run our nation's defenses for the next year.

I don't have an issue with it, the size of it, or the purpose of it.

In fact, I especially like provision 533 of the law. Because it put a check on the executive branch from being able to bully any further our military men and women, specifically those in uniform but who answer to a power much higher than one Barack Obama.

The provision specifically allows chaplains of all faiths to opt-out of being required to serve as an officiant or a celebrant at any "religious ceremony" that would conflict with their own deeply held religious faith.

To be clear, this provision has nothing to do with people who engage sexually--in any fashion. It has nothing to do with people who have ideas about how conservative or liberal the social mores of the day are (or should be.)

Instead it's sole language is aimed at giving 1st Amendment guarantees to military chaplains on issues that their faiths may find objectionable.

Because the President can't not sign a military spending bill--in order to keep our nation's defenses operating--he had to sign the measure, but in doing so he broke a "fundamental principle" that he held for many years--the inclusion of a signing statement.

In 2008 the President said this from the campaign trail:


"I disagree with that [issuing signing statements]. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States - we're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." - Barack Obama (May 2008)

Yet this seemed of little importance when he added this signing statement to the signature of the defense bill:

"Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."

As a lover of words, I always enjoy dissecting the meaning of something when someone states it, especially if they do it in a way that they said they never would.

Obama says, "unnecessary and ill-advised provision... because the military already protects the freedom of conscience."

Well Mr. President--I don't mean to speak out of turn--but if that were true, then why did people find it necessary to include this provision in this bill?

Obama, "The Secretary of Defense will ensure... regulations do not permit... discriminatory actions..."

Again, Mr. President, this seems to be saying that your designee will be the arbiter of what is moral. Not the conscience of the chaplain. This provision is designed to keep you from being able to order the chaplain to do something that violates his conscience. (You're pretty much missing the point here sir.)

Obama, "My administration remains committed to continuing the... implementation... of the repeal... of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

But wait, Mr. President, you took some law courses right? Once you've repealed a bill, there is no "continuing the successful implementation of." A law is repealed or it isn't. Someone isn't "almost" pregnant.

Obama, "Section 533 will not alter that."

Except Mr. President it completely will, as long as the section is allowed to stand under the law as passed. A law you signed. A law that even you yourself now sit under the authority of. And nothing you say about section thus and so will make it any other way.

Now I fully expect the President and his gaggle (Holder and the like) to go on a hot streak of investigation to purge all the discriminatory chaplains that exist in the military. Court cases must be filed, and these rampant abusers of power, the highly exalted military chaplain corps must be humbled. Because you know if there is one place to find discrimination it's in the military, and above all else you know how rotten to the bone military chaplains are in their uncaring desire to administer faith and comfort to wounded service personnel.

Today I am thankful for the men of conscience that make up our chaplain ranks. I pray for their future. And I hope that someday our President will learn to respect others' differences rather than insisting that his view of what is moral always be the law of the land.

President Obama is not God, though in his signing statement to this measure he sure seems to wish to sound like him.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos