“Immigrant Worker Firings Unsettle a College Campus,” New York Times reporter Jennifer Medina’s sympathetic report from Claremont, Calif., on immigrants without proof of legal residency being fired from the Pomona College cafeteria, blamed the firings on union-busting on the part of campus administration and failed to pose the obvious factual question: Were the workers here illegally or not? (Not that the Times has ever shown much concern about illegal immigration in its news coverage.)

The dining hall workers had been at Pomona College for years, some even decades. For a few, it was the only job they had held since moving to the United States.

Then late last year, administrators at the college delivered letters to dozens of the longtime employees asking them to show proof of legal residency, saying that an internal review had turned up problems in their files.

Seventeen workers could not produce documents showing that they were legally able to work in the United States. So on Dec. 2, they lost their jobs.

Now, the campus is deep into a consuming debate over what it means to be a college with liberal ideals, with some students, faculty and alumni accusing the administration and the board of directors of betraying the college’s ideals. The renewed discussion over immigration and low-wage workers has animated class discussions, late-night dorm conversations and furious back and forth on alumni e-mail lists. Some alumni are now refusing to donate to the college, while some students are considering discouraging prospective freshmen from enrolling.

For the last two years, many of the dining hall workers had been organizing to form a union, but the efforts stalled amid negotiations with the administration. Many on campus believe that the administration began looking into the employees’ work authorizations as a way to thwart the union effort, an accusation the college president, David W. Oxtoby, has repeatedly denied. But that has done little to quell questions and anger among the fired workers and many who support their efforts to unionize.

Medina briefly let legal reality intrude:

Dr. Oxtoby and the college’s trustees repeatedly said there was no choice but to fire the workers. In a letter from the law firm, lawyers for the college said the college would have left itself open to investigation and punishment from federal immigration authorities had it not fully examined the employment files.
 

Not once did Medina, a journalist, raise the obvious factual question: Were the cafeteria workers in the United States illegally?

CNN's Wolf Blitzer was apparently quite moved by President Obama's speech at Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast. Blitzer hailed it as a candid address and noted that the President spoke "very movingly" of his faith.

Of course, Obama's profession of his faith came shortly after his administration mandated religious-affiliated organizations to act against their church's teaching, a decision that caused great uproar. Blitzer did not mention that fact, but did cast Obama in a positive light as opposed to GOP candidate Mitt Romney. [Video below the break. Click here for audio.]

"He [Obama] also spoke about the Christian obligation to help the poor, amid the uproar Mitt Romney sparked by saying he's more concerned about the middle class than the very poor," Blitzer said.

Earlier in the afternoon, anchor Don Lemon expressed surprise at Obama's "candid" message after his faith has been criticized as of late. "So for a guy whose faith has been criticized, judged, and called into question, that was some pretty candid stuff," he surmised.

Lemon also noted Obama's "humbling" story of meeting evangelist Billy Graham, a term Blitzer used later to describe the same portion of Obama's speech. Were positive words like "candid" and "humbling" in the CNN talking points for the day concerning Obama's address?

A transcript of the segment, which aired on February 2 at 4:29 p.m. EST, is as follows:

[4:26]

WOLF BLITZER: President Obama opens up very movingly about his faith. You're going to hear him describe his spiritual journey, what he says has humbled him to his core.

(…)

[4:29]

BLITZER: President Obama talking openly and surprisingly candidly about his Christian faith at the National Annual Prayer Breakfast here in Washington today. The President shared that he prays regularly, and he described a humbling meeting with the Rev. Billy Graham. He also spoke about the Christian obligation to help the poor, amid the uproar Mitt Romney sparked by saying he's more concerned about the middle class than the very poor.
 

The liberal media have had a field day as they've been hard-at-work bashing the breast cancer charity Komen for the Cure and hyping how Planned Parenthood raised some $400,000 in 24 hours following Komen's announced decision to suspend grants to the abortion provider.

But did you know that Komen has seen a 100 percent uptick in its donations? Caroline May of The Daily Caller reported that this afternoon:

In the wake of this week’s announcement that Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be awarding grants to Planned Parenthood, the breast cancer organization’s donations have gone up 100 percent in the last two days.

On a Thursday conference call Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, told reporters that the organization is “singularly focused” on combating breast cancer, and that the politics of the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood has been distracting from their mission.

Nevertheless, since cutting ties, Brinker announced that Komen’s donations have gone up in the last two days — by 100 percent.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer.

Pro-lifers are just as fired up with excitement that Komen is distancing itself from Planned Parenthood as pro-choice radicals are incensed at the move. It remains to be seen if the liberal media will note Komen's fundraising success, but we at NewsBusters are calling on them to Tell the Truth!

In other news, Al Sharpton rejected criticism that he makes his living as a race-baiting grievance-monger. Suffice it to say, uncomfortable truths do not sit well with this man.

Responding to Mitt Romney saying he's "not concerned about the very poor" because of the decades-old government safety net, Sharpton swung into action on his radio show with a claim that is delusional even by Sharpton's expansive standards (audio clip after page break) –

The statement by Mitt Romney today, he's trying to walk it back saying that he wasn't concerned with the poor, concerned with the middle class, that he's trying to clarify it but even in his clarity I think he exposes to many the misconceptions. He said, well, there are programs for the poor, I meant my focus.

What programs for the poor? They [Republicans] keep acting as if poor people have all of these things that are helping them.

This from a man with the ear of the president, which should be surprising but, sadly, isn't.

A person tossing out such a whopper is not just engaging in magical thinking more often seen in children. He is locked in the infantile philosophy known as liberalism.

For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a lefty think-tank cited so often on MSNBC that they're a member of the family, posted an article last April titled "Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?," that does a nifty job of demolishing Sharpton's claim –

Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.

These programs include: the refundable portion of the earned-income and child tax credits, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals and households, including Supplemental Security income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including food stamps, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

According to FederalSafetyNet.com, federal spending to alleviate poverty has soared in the last 50 years, from $445 per person in 1960 to $7,741 per person in 2010 through a dozen federal programs. "Yet despite the increase in spending," the site points out, "the poverty level has remained fairly constant at between 12-15 percent of the population. While we have spent more and more money we have not lessened the number of people in poverty. Why? The reason is because our system is poorly designed. It doesn't have "conditions" attached to it, it "doesn't make work pay" and it lessens responsibility of participants."

An article from last May by the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl, "Myths of Tax Cuts for Rich, Spending Cuts for Poor," also demonstrates the lunacy of Sharpton's claim –

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, federal anti-poverty spending has soared from $190 billion in 1990 to $348 billion in 2000, and to a staggering $638 billion this year (all adjusted for inflation). The growth since 2000 has been particularly remarkable in the Children's Health Insurance Program (470 percent), food stamps (229 percent), energy assistance (163 percent), child care assistance (89 percent) and Medicaid (80 percent)

These expansions have been bipartisan: Mr. Bush — unfairly derided as bad for poor people — became the first president to spend more than 3 percent of the nation's income on anti-poverty programs. President Obama then pushed it above 4 percent. In fact, since 1990, anti-poverty spending as a share of national income has expanded as fast as Social Security, Medicare, defense and education — combined.

In answer to Sharpton's question, "What programs for the poor?," a one-word answer comes to mind — those. No matter. He'd rather you believe him than your lying eyes.

(h/t, Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer)

There's been a heap of criticism placed upon President Barack Obama's domestic policies that have promoted government intrusion and prolonged our fiscal crisis and his foreign policies that have emboldened our enemies. Any criticism of Obama pales in comparison with what might be said about the American people who voted him in to the nation's highest office.

Obama's presidency represents the first time in our history that a person could have been elected to that office who had long-standing close associations with people who hate our nation. I'm speaking of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, who preached that blacks should sing not "God Bless America," but "God damn America." Then there's William Ayers, now professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago but formerly a member of the Weather Underground, an anti-U.S. group that bombed the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and other government buildings. Although Ayers was never convicted of any crime, he told a New York Times reporter, in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attack, "I don't regret setting bombs. … I feel we didn't do enough." Obama has served on a foundation board, appeared on panels, and even held campaign events in Ayers' home, joined by Ayers' former-fugitive wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Bill Ayers' close association with Obama is reflected by his admission that he helped write Obama's memoirs, "Dreams from My Father."

Many Americans thought that with Obama's presidency, we were moving to a "post-racial society." Little can be further from the truth. Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, in a National Review (1/18/2012) article titled "Obama's Racial Politics," says that Obama's message about race and his charges of racial bigotry are "usually coded and subtle." Criticizing Republicans, before a Mexican-American audience, Obama said that he ran for office because "America should be a place where you can always make it if you try — a place where every child, no matter what they look like (or) where they come from, should have a chance to succeed." If you don't get it, "no matter what they look like" is code for nonwhite. Hanson says that Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, has "found race a convenient refuge from criticism — most recently accusing his congressional auditors of racism, for their grilling him over government sales of firearms to Mexican cartel hitmen."

Obama's racial politics are aided and abetted by a dishonest news media. When Republican candidate Texas Gov. Rick Perry referred to "a big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous," he was dishonestly accused of racism by MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who said, "That black cloud Perry is talking about is President Barack Obama." Schultz omitted the second half of Perry's quote. Chris Matthews referred to Perry's vision of federalism as "Bull Connor with a smile."

The media have help from black congressmen in stirring up racial dissent. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said white presidents must be "pushed a great deal more" to address black unemployment than would a black president. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said that argument over the debt ceiling is proof of racial animosity toward Obama. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said that Republicans are trying to deny blacks the vote. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., said the tea party wishes to lynch blacks and hang them from trees. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Perry's job creation in Texas is "one stage away from slavery."

All of this places a heavy burden on people who care about our nation. We must ensure that the 2012 elections are the most open and honest elections in U.S. history. Should Obama lose, I wouldn't put it past leftists, progressives, the news media and their race-hustling allies, as well as the president, to fan the fires of hate and dissension by charging that racists somehow stole the election, thereby giving support and excuses for the kind of violence and lawlessness that we've witnessed in flash mobs and Occupy Wall Street riots.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

The Big Three networks continued their blackout on covering the controversy involving the Obama administration trying to force Catholic institutions to include coverage of abortifacients and contraception in their health plans without a co-pay. Instead, Diane Sawyer on Wednesday's ABC World News highlighted Pfizer's recall of birth control pills that could "raise the risk of accidental pregnancy."

The same evening, both CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News aired reports on Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation discontinuing its funding of abortion perpetrator Planned Parenthood, with NBC's Brian Williams hyping how "thousands of women…[may]  pay the biggest price" for the move.

During her report, CBS's Nancy Cordes noted that "Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortion services, is a long-time target for social conservatives, like New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith." However, she did not give Rep. Jackie Speier, who has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an equivalent ideological label. The correspondent merely identified her as a "Democrat."

The following morning, both CBS and NBC continued their coverage of the controversy between Komen and Planned Parenthood. On Thursday's CBS This Morning, Cordes filed a follow-up report, but this time, left out the ideological labels for politicians on both sides of the debate.

CORDES: Planned Parenthood's history of providing abortions has earned it some powerful opponents.

NEWT GINGRICH, (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is the largest abortion provider in the United States- period.

CORDES: On Capitol Hill, Florida Republican Cliff Stearns has launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of taxpayer funds. The Komen Foundation says that investigation was a factor in their decision. Democrats called the investigation a partisan witch hunt that will go nowhere.

REP. JACKIE SPEIER, (D), CALIFORNIA (from speech on the House floor): Last time I checked, we were all presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It should be pointed out, however, that she later identified a vice president for Komen as being "anti-abortion."

On NBC's Today show, as NewsBusters's Kyle Drennen pointed out, chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman tried to meld the Planned Parenthood controversy with the firestorm over Mitt Romney's "not concerned about the very poor" remark.

Since January 20, the day that the Obama administration issued its health care mandate, there has only been one brief mention of the issue on the Big Three networks' morning and evening news programs. On January 30, CBS This Morning anchor Charlie Rose cited a story from the USA Today that "says Catholics blast federal birth control mandate."

MSNBC has been mocked as MS-DNC and MS-LSD by conservative critics. But given the network's constant drum-beat against the Komen Foundation for its decision to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates, it might be sensible to rename the liberal cable outlet MS-D&C, after the abortion procedure.

Throughout live coverage this morning and early afternoon, MSNBC hosts turned to pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards to rebuke the breast cancer charity for its decision. Finally, in the 1 p.m. hour, veteran journalist and breast cancer patient Andrea Mitchell interviewed Komen's founder, Ambassador Nancy Brinker. Yet that discussion turned out to be a hardball interview that was followed immediately afterwards by a softball chat with hard-left U.S. senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

Below are Mitchell's questions to Brinker (emphases mine):

• Well, the storm has exploded and you've been in this for a long time. You started Susan G. Komen in 1982, after the death of your sister and in her name, and you have raised more money than any other group for breast cancer research, which is why, I have to tell you, this is shocking to a lot of your long-time supporters. I want to give you a chance to answer, let me just what I was confronted with at the gym this morning. A woman came over to me, I had not met her before, gray-haired woman, probably in her 60s. She was wearing a gray T-shirt, and she said, "Look at my T-shirt. It's inside-out. I put it on by accident today. I'm not going to wear it anymore. I've torn the label out. It's a Komen T-shirt." These are long-time supporters who have run with you, who have supported you financially and otherwise, so, they're asking you, "How could this have taken place?"

• Well, it's just through the end of the grant cycle [that you have three grants to Planned Parenthood remaining]. Let me just put out there, first of all, that I have been very identified, an outspoken supporter, and participant in the races, over the years, long before I, myself, ended up being diagnosed with breast cancer. So I just want to put that out there, we've known each other a long time as well, both when you were a diplomat at the State Department. But I come to you today, you know, expressing the anger of a lot of people channeling through them, you see it on Twitter, you see it everywhere, and the fact is, a lot of people are tracing this back — my colleague Lisa Myers reporting last night on Nightly News — a lot of people are tracing this back to what some found the surprising hiring of Karen Handel, who ran for governor, we've seen her statements and her strong support, she said, when she was running for office, "I am staunchly and unequivocally pro-life. Let me be clear, since I am pro-life I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." The question is, for the bipartisan organization such as yours, which has a broad-based advisory group, why hire a key staff person who is so strongly, fiercely identified against Planned Parenthood, one of your grantees?

• But you've said that this is the one group out of 2,000 grantees. Planned Parenthood is the only that comes under the rubric of this new policy, which is not to fund any organization that is under investigation. And the investigation, from Congressman Stearns, many believe is trumped up.

• They're [Planned Parenthood is] always the target of investigations, that's the way–

• Their supporters say that they are the only ones that have been singled out among thousands and that their grants for breast screening have nothing to do with contraception or abortion counseling, that they separate this funding completely.

• What do you do about the fact that donors are pulling back? Some people would say that, I mean, the anger that's being expressed is going to hit you in the pocketbook. You have worked so hard to create a bipartisan organization, look at your Facebook page. Your Facebook page has people cutting red, pink ribbons in half. Your branding is at stake.

• Aren't the most vulnerable women going to be affected by this? Planned Parenthood serves those–

• Are you going to put out the evidence that you have that there's been anything flawed in the way they've delivered services to these vulnerable [women]?

Immediately after the Brinker interview, Mitchell turned to Sens. Murray and Boxer. Here are the questions Mitchell asked them (emphases mine):

• Sen. Murray, can you respond, from your information about Planned Parenthood, uh, what is the flaw in the way they are providing services and what are you planning to do about it?

• Sen. Boxer, why don't you speak out as well as to where you think we should go from here.

• Well, it's certainly troubling. This whole debate is troubling for people on all sides of it. Nancy Brinker is still here, let me just ask you [Ambassador Brinker], I know we're out of time, but is there any chance that you will respond to the senators and change the policy.

Not once did Mitchell challenge either senator, even though Murray insisted a "partisan witch hunt" was behind the Komen decision and Boxer brought up the specter of McCarthyism.

For her part Brinker repeatedly noted that Komen was still financing three grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates but that by and large Komen was dissatisfied with how the vast majority of Planned Parenthood affiliates handled the grant monies, particularly as they failed to provide direct care for women needing mammograms and follow-up coverage.

Lost in most of the MSNBC coverage has been the fact that Planned Parenthood does not in fact provide mammograms to patients, merely referring women to where they can find them.

Since announcing that it would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood on Wednesday, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has been subject to a vicious smear campaign by the abortion provider, a campaign which NBC News has worked to advance over the past 48 hours.

At the top of Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams sounded the alarm: "Caught in the middle. Two of the biggest names in women's health, tonight in a bitter fight over money and it may be thousands of women who pay the biggest price." In a later tease of the upcoming report he made no secret of who he thought the villain of the story was: "A decision that's making a lot of women furious at the world's largest breast cancer organization. Why did it cut off funds for critical breast cancer screenings?"

One thing Williams failed to mention was the fact that Planned Parenthood does not actually provide mammograms.

In the report that followed, correspondent Lisa Myers proclaimed: "Susan G. Komen’s race is for the cure. They raised 271 million dollars last year to advance breast cancer awareness, but today many angry women, on Twitter and the radio, vowed their Komen racing days are over."

Two sound bites were included from women calling into a local National Public Radio affiliate in New York City, WNYC. One complained: "We are really upset by this decision and were not gonna do the Komen race anymore." Another announced: "I changed my mind and sent the money elsewhere."

After noting that congressional Republicans were currently investigating Planned Parenthood, Myers touted how, "Planned Parenthood’s CEO called the decision [by Komen] political and disappointing." CEO Cecile Richards condemned Komen: "The Komen Foundation has been the target of a right-wing political campaign, bullying them and unfortunately the results seems to be that they gave into it."

While completely ignoring Planned Parenthood's left-wing agenda, Myers worried that Komen had some how been co-opted by those "bullying" conservatives: "Not long ago, Komen also hired a new Vice President, Karen Handel, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, who strongly opposed abortion and vowed to de-fund planned parenthood during her campaign."

Wrapping up the Planned Parenthood press release, Myers cited yet another staunch supporter of the group: "Leslie Dergen, a breast cancer survivor and an official with Planned Parenthood's Denver affiliate, says this will hurt the most vulnerable women who have nowhere else to turn."

On Thursday's Today, Myers offered an abbreviated repeat of the previous night's report, noting that it was "an increasingly bitter dispute" and signaled to Komen that slanted media coverage would continue: "If Komen thought its decision to end its partnership with Planned Parenthood would quietly defuse a controversial issue, it appears to have miscalculated."

Perhaps the oddest and most blatant advocacy for Planned Parenthood occurred in the 9 a.m. et hour on Today, when NBC's chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman awkwardly tried to shoe-horn the issue into a discussion of Mitt Romney's "not concerned about the very poor" comment:

So let me put this into context with regard to health care in this country. This is the same time that Planned Parenthood is losing money from the Komen Foundation which is a safety net for mammography for women. 37 million poor women now may not be able to get mammography. That's the safety net for the working poor? I don't care if he mis-spoke or not. Let's be real. Almost half of the U.S. now is, is not making it well. So I think it's a huge gaffe.

Once again, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.

New York Times reporters Gardiner Harris and Pam Belluck passed on the outrage of pro-choice groups to news that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which fights breast cancer, is cutting financial support to Planned Parenthood in the wake of bad publicity and a congressional investigation. The Times reporters seemed pretty outraged about it themselves in Thursday's “Uproar as Breast Cancer Group Ends Partnership With Planned Parenthood.”

The Times helped push the story with two pro-Planned Parenthood images; a ridiculous-looking posed shot of three pro-abortion activists in Richmond, Va., trying a Twitter campaign to boycott Komen, and an anti-Komen satirical liberal greeting already making the rounds on the left side of the web. While the reporters found "conservative women" that supported Komen's move, there was no liberal label for Planned Parenthood acolytes, who were merely "prominent women’s groups, politicians and public health advocates."

Pink ribbons have for decades been a symbol of resolve and compassion in the face of the deadly disease of breast cancer. Now, that nearly ubiquitous icon has many women seeing red.

When the nation’s largest breast cancer advocacy organization considered in October cutting off most of its financial support to the nation’s largest abortion provider, the breast cancer group was hoping for a quiet end to an increasingly controversial partnership.

Instead, the organization, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, is now engulfed in a controversy that threatens to undermine one of the most successful advocacy campaigns. The foundation’s decision to eliminate most of its grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening caused a cascade of criticism from prominent women’s groups, politicians and public health advocates and a similarly strong outpouring of support from conservative women and religious groups that oppose abortion.

Now, leaders of both the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood are accusing each other of bad faith and actions that undermine women. And two organizations dedicated to detecting and curing breast cancer have found themselves on opposite sides of the nation’s divisive debate over abortion.

After an explanation that Planned Parenthood is the subject of a congressional investigation by Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, the group morphed from an “abortion provider” to a “health services provider” within one paragraph, as Times reporters accused congress of conducting a "partisan investigation," while taking the group's word that "Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s expenditures go toward abortion services."

So the Komen board voted that all of its vendors and grantees must certify that they are not under investigation by federal, state or local authorities. But for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, being the target of partisan investigations is part of doing business. So Komen’s new rule effectively ended their long partnership and seemed to the health services provider an unacceptable betrayal of their common mission to save women’s lives.

Dawn Laguens, an executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that Komen’s money had over the years underwritten breast cancer screenings for 170,000 women, some of whose lives were saved as a result. She said she had no sympathy for Komen’s attempt to mollify donors by ending its relationship with a controversial provider of women’s health services. Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s expenditures go toward abortion services.

Wait. The Times just identified Planned Parenthood as “the nation’s largest abortion provider.” Doesn’t that render the "percentage of expenditures" talking point irrelevant?

Not until paragraph 18 of the 21-paragraph story does the Times locate a source happy with Komen’s decision, and that’s quickly balanced out with more liberal outrage.

Foes of abortion and Web sites critical of it have criticized the Komen foundation’s financing of Planned Parenthood for years. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis and several bishops in Ohio issued statements last year raising concerns about donating to the Komen foundation. In December, LifeWay Christian Resources, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, said it was recalling a pink Bible it was selling because a dollar per copy was going to the Komen foundation.

“We are very grateful Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer fund Planned Parenthood affiliates,” said Thom S. Rainer, president of LifeWay.

Pleas to boycott or defend Susan G. Komen for the Cure over its decision to pull money from Planned Parenthood poured onto Web sites like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr on Wednesday, as activists both amateur and professional urged action.

“Susan Komen would not give in to bullies or to fear,” Judy Blume, the children’s book author, said in a Twitter post. “Too bad the foundation bearing her name did.”

It’s not just the Catholics that have opposed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for her new contraceptive mandate on religiously affiliated schools and hospitals through Obamacare. The Jewish news site JTA.org reported that two Orthodox Jewish groups have protested the decision.

Nathan Diament, executive director of public policy for the Orthodox Union, was even a member of President Obama’s advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. He tweeted “Does HHS ann. re #religious inst.s & contraceptn insurance match up w/ #Obama at Notre Dame '09 ?” He linked to the video, in which Obama insisted “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.”

And: “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women."

And: “Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where ‘differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.’”

Someone in the Obama administration placed the lighthouse in the middle of perilous crossroads. 

In a statement Diament said the “most troubling” aspect of the decision was the Obama administration’s “underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its 'religious' character and liberties.”

Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s vice president for federal government affairs and Washington director, said that the decision “only muddied the waters and took a step backwards by imposing religiously objectionable mandates on religious entities and by devising an astoundingly counterproductive limitation on what 'religious groups' are and what their public mission in society should be.”