They are strong words that he does not use lightly. Here is a list of ways Catholics feel backed into a corner by the Obama administration.

(Update: Archbishop Naumann asked us to start a Memorare Army for religious liberty. Click here for details.)

1. Abortion Extremism. Most Americans call themselves pro-life when it comes to abortion. In this regard, the Obama administration is not at all like most Americans. As I documented at the National Catholic Register, Obama’s administration made attacks on the right to life priority No. 1.

2. Forced Contraception Coverage. If the administration forced Jewish delicatessens to serve pork that would rightly be denounced as an attack on religious liberty, both by those who “keep kosher,” those who don’t, and those who aren’t Jewish at all. By forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization, the White House is doing exactly the same thing.

3. Forced Funding of Abortifacients. By forcing Catholics to pay for birth control pills, Obama has inadvertently forced into the light a medical fact that contraception’s supporters would like to forget: Contraceptive pills work in several ways. The Mayo Clinic lists them here.  Among them: “Alter the lining of the uterus so a fertilized egg doesn’t attach to it.” A “fertilized egg,” in layman’s terms, is a newly conceived human being who is already male or female and with all the genetic information that will determine whether or not she is tall, short, good at singing or excellent at softball. And preventing implantation kills that new boy or girl.

4. Breaking Notre Dame Promise. When he spoke at Notre Dame, Obama assured Catholics that his still-new administration would “draft a sensible conscience clause” for Catholics. Forcing Jewish delicatessens to sell pork would not be a “sensible conscience clause.” Forcing Catholics to fund contraceptives is not a “sensible conscience clause.”

5. Anti-War Catholics Disappointed. Some Catholics who supported Obama said they did so because he was anti-war, compared to Bush. But Obama has not deviated from the Bush administration’s Iraq timetable, Afghanistan strategy or Guantanamo Bay policy. After he added a Libyan conflict to his record and spent a third of his 2012 State of the Union promoting his military record, the Nobel Peace Prize committee came under investigation for awarding him its prize.

6. Hushing Army Chaplains. At the same time, under the Obama administration, the Army has silenced chaplains who were instructed by their Archbishop to read a letter about the Obama administration’s forced contraception coverage. Kathryn Jean Lopez reports.

7. Government Regulating Ministers. If the Supreme Court had not stopped him, the Obama administration would have inserted the federal government in the hiring and firing of civilian ministers. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous January 2012 decision that the court was protecting “the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

8. Catholics Officially Bigots. Obama campaigned claiming he was for protecting traditional marriage and against same-sex “marriage.” But as Bishop William Lori testified in the U.S. Senate, “The Federal Department of Justice has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act by mischaracterizing it as an act of bigotry.” He cited several examples, including Catholics being driven out of adoption services because they will not assist homosexual couples in adoptions.

9. Federal “Catholics Need Not Apply” Policies. It was bad enough when local businesses barred Catholics from certain jobs in the early 20th century. Now the White House has put “Catholics Need Not Apply” signs up in key places, denying Catholics the ability to fulfill certain charitable grants. Bishop Lori provides several examples.

10. Anti-Immigrant Policies. President Obama’s unprecedentedly harsh deportation policy has drawn the ire of Latinos. Catholic bishops as recently as August had hoped for a change that would be more in line with Church teaching on welcoming immigrants.

—————————-

Tom Hoopes is writer in residence at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kan., where he teaches in the Journalism and Mass Communications department and edits the college’s Catholic identity speech digest, The Gregorian.

The Washington Post profiles Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA List, calling her “a feminine face for the anti-abortion movement.” http://cvote.to/7R

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, uses a procedural move in order to delay a Senate Judiciary vote on a bill to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. http://cvote.to/7S

An Iowa poll reveals that potential caucus voters who would pay more under Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan think they would pay less. http://cvote.to/7T

Mitt Romney makes a play for conservatives – announces a bold Medicare reform plan. http://cvote.to/7U

Bishop Daniel Flores shares his thoughts about his Texas diocese that borders Mexico. http://cvote.to/7V

86 House members sign Rep. Todd Akin’s letter urging the Senate to protect the Defense of Marriage Act. http://cvote.to/7W

Latest ABC/Washington Post national poll of GOP voters: Romney 24%, Cain 23%, Perry 13%, Newt 12%. http://cvote.to/7X

CatholicVote surpassed 5,000 followers on Twitter. Are you following? http://cvote.to/7Y

There’s fury in Germany after George Papandreou, Greece’s President called upon the people of Greece to vote on the austerity package. Expect stocks worldwide to plummet. http://cvote.to/78

Echoing CV Blogger Mark Stricherz, Ramesh Ponnuru says the flat tax is fool’s gold. http://cvote.to/76

Gays begin a boycott of Chick-Fil-A because their charitable arm supports groups which promote marriage as a union of one man and one woman. http://cvote.to/77

Two people who worked for abortionist Kermit Gosnell plead guilty to murder (warning: graphic details). http://cvote.to/79

Jonah Goldberg says right now could have been Tim Pawlenty’s Moment. (He was my favorite candidate…) http://cvote.to/7A

Why the U.S. needs DOMA. http://cvote.to/7B

US House votes today on resolution that reaffirms “In God We Trust” as the official US motto. http://cvote.to/7C

That’s fairly standard, basic U.S. government 101, right? I mean, any school kid knows that stuff, so you’d expect a person who supposedly taught Constitutional law would especially know that, right?  So what the heck is the executive branch doing declaring a duly enacted law unconstitutional, stipulating its own interpretation of the Constitution, and refusing to defend and enforce that law?

It seems some Con Law professors and lawyers are like so many theologians who get “so smart” that they forget to be orthodox and suddenly they’ve formulated a doctrine that makes sense to them (or at least fits their hoped-for reality), but doesn’t at all resemble the original material upon which it was built. But I digress…

The abandonment of DOMA and the reasoning for it is what we call a “naked power grab.” They didn’t even do it surreptitiously by defending the law poorly and letting it be struck down in court. While underhanded, that would at least be defensible. No, they boldly proclaimed themselves unrestrained by the strictures of their Constitutional role and did that which is reserved to the judicial branch.

Some have pointed out that this could backfire on Obama at some later date. They say it opens the way for Congressional Republicans to insert their own lawyers into the defense of DOMA, who would undoubtedly mount a more robust defense of the law, thus saving what was otherwise a sabotaged defense.

Another says both a) that it may backfire on Obama’s when a future Republican president simply decides that Obamacare is unconstitutional and therefore not to be enforced or implemented; and b) that since Elena Kagan was likely party to conversations regarding DOMA during her recent tenure as solicitor general she will be under great pressure to recuse herself on any future DOMA-related case before the Supreme Court.

A friend of mine also pointed out that this really puts any Supreme Court action on this topic in a new light because of the jurisprudential tendencies of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy, the only real “swing” vote on the present Court, frequently decides and reasons in ways more focused on defending and expanding the prerogative of the Court rather than offering worthwhile opinions on the merits. Any incursion upon that prerogative will not play well with him, and this decision by Obama is beyond an incursion: it’s a taking, bypassing, ignoring of the Court. Justice Kennedy won’t take kindly to that. So this decision is a loser there as well.

But those are all long-term ramification thoughts. What about right now?

Ed Whelan suggests something I had thought immediately, but would go further than he does.

See, along with the separation of powers we have “checks and balances.” The President must sign acts into law, but if the President is recalcitrant on a manifestly worthy law and vetoes it, the Congress can override the veto and make the act a law in spite of the President’s opposition.

Also, while the executive branch is charged with carrying out the work of governance, it cannot raise or apportion its own money: that is up to Congress to apportion and provide. Specifically, all spending initiatives must originate in the House of Representatives. If the House does not want something to get money, it does not get money.

If the President and his attorney general have refused to do what they swore they would do and have overstepped their specific duties, the Congress can, and ought to, simply defund their activities. Cut the President’s salary. Cut the salary of anyone involved in the non-defense of a duly enacted law. If they are specifically refusing to do their job and are specifically violating the principle of separation of powers they ought not get paid as though everything is operating properly.

It really is not hard to do, especially with the continuing resolution to fund the government through the remainder of this year still in the works. Simply remove the line items that apportion monies to those accounts and it’s done.

We’re looking to cut costs on ineffective and poorly performing parts of the government: the President and Attorney General have presented a good example of ineffective, poorly performing government.