Once you see it, you can never un-see it.
There is an important video making the rounds today in which Rep. Gowdy of South Carolina questions HHS Secretary and Catholic turncoat Kathleen Sebelius on the legal justification for the right-destroying contraception mandate. It is a very telling clip. But before we get to that, I need to talk about something in order to put it in its proper context. I need to speak about Van Damme's bump.
The '80s was the heyday of "B" action movies and I loved them. Hey, I am a guy, sue me. Among the pantheon of b-movie action stars was a certain Belgian by the name of Jean-Claude Van Damme. You may remember him. He made a couple of stupid fun movies and I enjoyed them. I use the past tense "enjoyed" because something terrible happened that does not allow me to enjoy them anymore.
One day, while I was watching a Van Damme movie on cable, my brother casually said to me, "Do you see it?"
"Van Damme's bump. Do you see the bump? On his head. Do you see it?"
"No. What are you talking about?" Then glancing back at the television I exhaled "OHHHHHhhhhhhh....."
How had I never noticed that thing before? It stared out at me like one of those pictures in which the eyes seem to fix upon you. Steady. Menacing. Unrelenting.
I tried to watch Van Damme movies after that, but I just couldn't un-notice it. So it was that the question began to form in my head. How did I watch all those movies without noticing something so obvious? And now that I had noticed it, thanks to someone else pointing it out, it became impossible to see anything else.
So. I will attempt to do the same thing for you now that my brother did for me a long time ago. Not with Van Damme, but with this Administration.
When you watch this video of Rep. Gowdy asking Sec. Sebelius about the legal justification for the mandate and about her statement about it striking the proper balance between religious liberty and the State's compelling interest in providing free birth control I want you to see it.
No, Sec. Sebelius does not have a giant bump on her head. No, what becomes obvious in this video is much more cold, calculating, and scary than Van Damme's bump could ever be. Van Damme's bump should be scared of Kathleen Sebelius.
When you watch the video, it should become apparent to you that during the formulation of the mandate the topic of the legality and the constitutional justification for the mandate NEVER EVEN CAME UP. The legality of what they were doing was never even a consideration. Even now, the question seems irrelevant to them. This is evidenced by what is perhaps the biggest SIGH ever uttered by a Secretary in Congressional testimony. The legality question, even today, after all the protests, seems completely irrelevant to them.
So the big question I want you to ponder while you watch the video is this. When she stated that the mandate struck the proper balance, she clearly did not mean between a state interest and religious liberty, she admits as much. So the proper balance between what then? Then maybe you will see what I saw and what I believe I can never un-see. The balance she refers to is the balance between what they really want to do (force religion completely out of public life) and what they can get away with for now while moving toward that objective. The balance between what they want to do and what they think they can get away with. The Constitution is not even a consideration. This is who they are. This is their objective. This is what we are up against. This is what I saw.
I warn you, once you see it. You can never un-see it.