Obamacare is %&@*ing Constitutional?

Well, the unimaginable has happened.  The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the patently unconstitutional Obamacare law does indeed pass constitutional muster.   I am still trying to wrap my mind around the contorted adjudication that rendered THAT decision. 

I fully expected Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg to ignore the Constitution and put their politics above that of our supreme law of the land.  Hell, Kagan was advocating for the law personally and as solicitor general prior to being appointed by Obama to the Supreme Court, so that certainly comes as no surprise, even though she should have recused herself from the decision for that very reason. 

As for Ruth Vader Ginsburg, well her seeming disdain, if not outright loathing, of the Constitution is well known.  After all, she was the one that suggested to the newly elected Egyptian government to NOT use the United States Constitution as a model for their own.  She has long been inclined to look at international law when rendering Supreme Court decisions.  That alone strikes me as a violation of her oath and reason for impeachment from the bench, but I digress.

It is ironic that the “swing voter” Justice Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion in this thoroughly baffling and asinine 5 to 4 decision and correctly stated that the entire law was absolutely un-constitutional. 

It was George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts that appeared to lose all control of his mental faculties and refused to actually apply constitutional law in his decision and thus voted with the “liberal” members of the court in upholding this travesty of a law.  Whereas Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan are all about as useful as football bats, one had hoped that Roberts would have actually perused the Constitution and related law in reaching his decision.  Evidently that hope was misplaced like Miley Cyrus’ virtue.

What I find fascinating is the fact that Roberts and the progressive justices ruled that Obamacare was able to proceed in tact because the federal government could indeed levy such taxes (penalties) for those that did not acquire health insurance in accordance with the law.  Why that is interesting is because during the debate prior to its passage, all the players in support of the law including then-Speaker Pelosi and President Obama insisted that this was not to be considered as a tax, as that would constitutionally invalidate the bill.  Of course we were also told that the law would lower our health care costs and that the entire process would be transparent and debated on C-Span too.

Well now that the left has spoken, there is only one more firewall left to prevent this egregious freedom-stealing, life-destroying, cost-raising law from being fully implemented.  America MUST elect Romney to the presidency and ensure that he has solid majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate so that this monstrosity can be fully repealed.  If we fail to do this as a nation, the law will be fully implemented in 2014.  I fear our nation as we currently know it will not survive if full repeal does not come to pass.

Once people become dependent upon this new program, it will be nearly impossible to repeal.  Never mind the fact that this law has already proven to make the costs for small businesses go up and thus reduced their ability to hire new employees.  Never mind the fact that there are indeed pro-abortion mandates within the law.  Never mind the fact that conscience clauses and religious exemptions are null and void for this law.  Never mind that rationing of critical medical services will indeed occur.  Never mind that medical devices stocks are already plunging today in light of this news.  Never mind that the death panels that Sarah Palin warned us about and was summarily laughed at accordingly will come to pass, albeit under the gentler euphemism of “end of life counseling”.  Never mind that we have created one more entitlement program that is so gargantuan in its scope that it encompasses 1/6 of the nation’s economy.  Never mind that the added costs of this law will add to the already $16 TRILLION debt we currently have as a country and are unable to pay right now.  Yep, never mind.  Instead of being the rugged individuals that fought for and supported liberty in this greatest country on earth, we will have become a nation of progressive victims that look to our nanny government to solve every problem we encounter in our lives.  Those that would proudly take care of themselves and their kin will be looked at as a kind of odd and slightly amusing anachronism to the left.

One wonders, now that the Supreme Court has stated that the federal government can mandate that private citizens must purchase whatever goods or services that the government deems as necessary for the "common good", just where that might take us?  I wonder just how loudly the progressives would scream and whine and gnash their teeth if some future congress and president mandated that every citizen must purchase a firearm, as part of a citizen militia, or face penalties.  There certainly seems to be more constitutional standing for that mandate than there is for Obamacare, not that we are using the Constitution as our standard any more apparently.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t EVER again want to hear the foolish meme from Rachel Maddow and the rest of the useful idiot progressive talking heads on TV and the radio whine about the “right wing Supreme Court”.  That dog simply won’t hunt anymore.  In fact that dog is road kill, along with one more of our essential liberties.

Political Gain Trumps National Security for Obama

In July of 2003 Robert Novak had an article published in the New York Times that created quite an uproar because it supposedly outed a CIA operative by the name of Valerie Plame.  This was done, so the left theorized, in retaliation by the White House for Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, having had the temerity to tell about the administration’s attempt to “manufacture evidence to gin up support for going to war in Iraq”.   

The fact was that Wilson’s “fact-finding mission” to Niger to determine whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was trying to acquire yellowcake uranium from them had enormous holes and contradictory statements in his report on the trip.  Indeed, The Iraq Intelligence Commission and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that many of Wilson’s claims were incorrect.  Further, the Senate report stated that Wilson’s report actually bolstered rather than detracted from intelligence about the purported sale of uranium to Iraq.  To this day, British Intelligence stands by the claim that Saddam Hussein did indeed attempt to acquire such material from Niger.

With all of that said and done, the progressive mainstream media nonetheless had a field day regarding the supposedly “politically-motivated” security leaks regarding the outing of a CIA agent.  Indeed the New York Times ran no less than 521 articles suggesting it was wrong of the White House, and presidential advisor Karl Rove in particular, to divulge such information.  So vexed were the Democrats that Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft saw to it that a special counsel by the name of Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the case in depth.   Mr. Fitzgerald though seemed more bent on finding Republicans in the administration to skewer rather than any real interest in finding out who was the actual source of the leak.  Indeed he was told at the very beginning of his investigation that a high ranking State Department official who was critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy by the name of Richard Armitage was the source of the leak that outed Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent.  Fitzgerald proceeded with the investigation anyway in the hope of trying to find any sort of malfeasance on behalf of such possible trophies as Karl Rove or possibly even Vice President Dick Cheney himself.  What he ended up with was a perjury conviction of Cheney’s assistant Scooter Libby for statements that really weren’t even particularly pertinent to the leaking of Plame’s identity from Armitage.

In September of that year, Novak stated, "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. There is no great crime here," adding that while he learned from two administration officials that Plame was a CIA employee, "[The CIA] asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators."

The case was closed.  The left was disappointed that they were unable to catch a bigger fish in the “scandal” than Scooter Libby, and they decried that national security was weakened because an agent who was not working undercover and who was widely known in the DC cocktail circuit had her identity proclaimed to the world for purely crass political reasons.

Fast forward a little less than a decade and it would seem that numerous security leaks that have been done almost assuredly with White House knowledge if not outright orders to do so for absolutely political reasons is now the norm.  Multiple recent stories of national security interest leaked to the press all have one thing in common; they try to make President Obama look like he is tough on terrorism and a stalwart hero on foreign policy accordingly.  The problem is that Obama’s leaks truly do endanger national security.  They put covert assets in mortal danger, destroy trust and credibility with our allies, and enable our enemies to determine how to plug holes in their security.

Indeed in early May the Associated Press reported that a CIA asset from Saudi Arabia had infiltrated al-Qaida and had thwarted another planned underwear bomb attack on a flight to the United States.  His cover thus being blown, the United States had to extract this asset thereby precluding him from gaining future intelligence to protect America. 

At the end of May, the New York Times reported how President Obama personally is choosing the targets on a classified “kill list” of terrorists via drone attacks. 

On June 1^st, the New York Times ran an astonishingly detailed story regarding the administration’s working with Israel to create the Stuxnet computer worm to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  This removed plausible deniability for America and further exposed our ally Israel in the process. 

Immediately after the successful killing of Osama bin Laden last year, for which President Obama should indeed be congratulated, he released vital details of the mission including the fact that Seal Team 6 were the operators of the task.  Obama’s decision to take the announcement of this great coup to press so quickly after its execution precluded the ability of our intelligence agencies from following up on numerous other possible leads acquired during the successful raid.  Further, Pakistani Doctor Shakil Afridi reportedly provided critical intelligence on the location and identify of bin Laden thus allowing his termination to even be attempted.  Dr. Afridi is now serving 33 years in a Pakistani prison because of the public leaking of this information.  Such actions will make future would-be assets think twice about providing crucial information to the United States if they have to fear about their own safety or well-being.

“Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said after the bin Laden raid, adding that the level of disclosures and blabbing violates an agreement reached in the White House Situation Room on May 8, 2011, to keep details of the raid private.  “That lasted about 15 hours,” a very vexed Gates said.

So severe are these continued leaks of vital national security issues that they have even been a source of great concern to many Democrats in the House and Senate.  “The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable,” said the statement from Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. — the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee — and Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, D-Md. – the chair and ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.  “Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.”

When asked about the seeming politically motivated release of such important national security information by the White House, spokesman Jay Carney told reporters, “This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operation.  …Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible.”

Okay, I would like to be able to take that statement at face value; however, it doesn’t seem to jibe with the facts at hand.  First, there was absolutely no condemnation or attempt to suppress any of these leaks by the White House after they were publicized.  Second, there was no statement on the matters whatsoever until the White House was specifically asked by reporters.  If these leaks were truly not politically motivated, one would expect that some harsh statement from the White House would have been issued and a concerted effort made to find the source of these leaks immediately. 

No, once again, our dear President is putting his own political career above that of our national security.  This time though how many lives could potentially be affected for his own narcissistic gain?  How many lives have already been affected or even lost because of Obama’s political calculations, with our national security being damned in the process?  Barack Obama is not just in over his head as I had once believed.  He has now become a threat to the very well-being of this country and is in violation of his oath of office.  He must be removed as president and commander in chief.  One hopes America can survive the rest of the year until that finally comes to fruition.

Democrats Disenfranchise Voters in Massachusetts

I came across an interesting little story during my lunch hour today that once again displays the shameless levels of hypocrisy perpetrated by the Democratic Party.   Of course it was not reported in the mainstream media.  It would seem that the Massachusetts Democratic Convention was held last Saturday on June 2^nd.  What was particularly interesting to note was that anyone entering the MassMutal Center for the convention would be required to show photo identification.  This was clearly spelled out on page 14 of the convention program accordingly. 

Now isn’t it amazing that the very party that screams about the disenfranchisement that the evil Republicans are creating by wanting to ensure that the people voting in elections are who they claim to be by showing photo ID prior to entering the voting booth is making it a requirement that photo identification must be presented in order to enter the Massachusetts Democratic Convention?  Is it possible that the Democrats really didn’t have altruistic motives in allowing anyone and everyone to vote based only on their good word that they were legally authorized to vote? 

If this disenfranchisement of Democrats from their state convention is offensive to you people, I would suggest that you make your complaint known in person to the Honorable Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice in Washington DC.  Just make sure you take along your driver’s license with you though, as I guarantee you will need a photo ID to gain access to this voter/taxpayer funded office building.

Michael Jordan and Agnes

The NBA draft in 1984 was remarkable for many reasons.  The first being that my beloved Portland Trailblazers and the Houston Rockets flipped a coin for the very first pick.  Houston won the flip and chose arguably one of the best centers to ever play the game in Hakeem Olajuwon.  The Trailblazers thus had the second pick.  There was a promising young wing man available, but the Blazers already had the brilliant Clyde Drexler and Jim Paxson on their roster.  What they really needed was a big man.  With that being the case, they chose Sam Bowie as the second pick of the draft that year and thus allowed the Chicago Bulls to pick Michael Jordan as the third pick of the draft.

 

The rest is history, of course, as Michael Jordan came to be the player that was synonymous with basketball and a champion that dominated the NBA during his career.  He is still one of the most recognizable sports stars in the world, despite the fact that he has been retired for nearly a decade.  Ask anyone who the greatest NBA player of all time is and odds are good that Michael Jordan will be the answer you get.  He really was that good, and I cry to think what my Trailblazers could have accomplished with Drexler and Jordan as teammates.  Of course my Blazers seemed intent on repeating history when a few short years ago they chose the perpetually-injured and now retired Greg Oden with the first pick of the draft instead of the amazing Kevin Durant, but I digress.

The fact is that Jordan was an extraordinary player that elevated the playing level of all of his team-mates.  His determination made everyone on his team better.  His entrance into the NBA forever changed the game in new and exciting fashion.  One man with skill and burning determination changed the game and became a world-renowned icon.  Players of his caliber come along only once in several generations.

Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was born on August 26^th of 1910 in Skopje, now the capitol of Macedonia.  This slight and unassuming lady heard God’s call at an early age and therefore decided to live a life consecrated to Christ as a nun.  She was called again by God in September of 1946.  He asked her to form the Missionaries of Charity because, as He told her, by her weak and sinful nature her future accomplishments through Him would glorify Christ.  In her humility and obedience she asked permission of her archbishop to proceed in her Divinely-instructed task and in January of 1948 was granted permission accordingly.

Agnes labored and toiled in the slums of Calcutta, India and throughout the world helping the sick and poverty-stricken.  At the time of her death, the Missionaries of Charity that she founded had 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis.  She established soup kitchens, child and family counseling programs, orphanages, and schools throughout the world.

 

Through her willingness to say “yes” to God’s call she was able to glorify Him and help literally millions of people directly and indirectly throughout the world.

Agnes was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her indefatigable caring of the sick, poor, unwanted, and unloved.  When asked at receiving the award, "What can we do to promote world peace?" She answered "Go home and love your family."

Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu has been beatified since her death in 1997 and is awaiting a second miracle accredited to her in order to complete the process of being recognized as a Saint by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  Of course, the world knew Agnes as Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Mother Teresa changed the world by her perseverance, faith, and most of all love.  She was voted as the most admired person of the 20^th century by a wide margin in a 1999 Gallup poll.  She was rather apathetic on a personal level about temporal awards given to her, but dutifully accepted them for the attention and money that they could bring in order to lessen the suffering of others in the world. People of her character also come around once in scores of generations.

Summing up her life in characteristically self-effacing fashion, Mother Teresa said, "By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus."

Today, when one asks a child, or even most adults who their heroes are, Michael Jordan could very likely be one of the answers one would receive.  Indeed, he elevated basketball to an entirely new plateau and will go down in history as one of the greatest, if not the greatest player of all time.  That said, his accomplishments are as nothing when compared to a petite and humble lady that was willing to listen and devote her life to glorifying God through her actions.

Despite that, can one imagine how absolutely amazing the game of basketball would be today if there were a dozen Michael Jordan’s playing in the NBA now?  The excitement of the competition would be incredible.  Basketball would surely become the most dominating sport in the world accordingly with such talent exhibited.

Far more importantly, can one imagine how much better a place the world would be today if there were a dozen Mother Teresa’s in it?  How many lives could be made better?  How many hopeless people would know that there was someone that cared?  How many sick and dying would know that there was still love in the world?

While I admire the talents and accomplishments of Michael Jordan, and dearly wish my Trailblazers had been more prescient in their draft choice, his life’s work pales horribly in comparison to someone who really is deserving of the moniker of hero, even though Mother Teresa would never accept the title.  If only there were a dozen more heroes like Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in the world.  Better yet, if only every single person out of the nearly 7 billion in the world would stop for a moment and do just a single act of kindness towards their fellow man, as Mother Teresa and Jesus Christ would wish it, what a better place we would all make our world.  I am sure even Michael Jordan would agree.

30 Questions the Mainstream Media Will Never Ask Obama

I am increasingly sickened by the sycophantic mainstream media and their attempts to run cover for their ideological fellow-traveler President Obama.  Despite the cacophonous protestations from leftists throughout the country to the contrary (and from the media in particular) whenever the charge is made regarding the overwhelming media bias favoring Democrats and progressives, it has demonstrably proven to be a longstanding tradition of fact for the last few generations nonetheless.  The problem is that now we truly have come to a crossroads with this up-coming election.  I know this has become a cliché’ but that doesn’t change the truth of the statement one bit.  Either we will apply the brakes and start turning the car from careening out of control towards the gaping chasm we are rapidly approaching and thereby return our country to solid and responsible liberty-based constitutional rule, or we will mash the accelerator to the floorboard as we all chant Obama’s 2012 election slogan of “Forward!”.  The former choice is the only possibility of saving the last greatest chance for freedom and liberty on this planet.  The latter will result in the final ruination of our economy and the complete usurpation of our God-given liberties.  If President Obama is re-elected, the American Dollar will go the way of the Soviet Ruble.

We know which direction the left and its allies and useful idiots in the media want to go.  It is quite evident in the questions they ask of Republicans and conservatives and which questions they tellingly DON’T ask of Democrats, progressives, and our Marxist President.  To them, any tough question towards the President, particularly regarding his dismal performance with the economy must be avoided at all costs.  On the other hand, it is not only permissible but mandatory that the leftist mainstream media distract from the President’s ineptitude and corruption by making mountains out of GOP molehills wherever possible.  They invent a fictional “war on women waged by conservatives” and decry that Ann Romney is out of touch with Americans because she had the audacity to wear a $900 shirt on TV.  Of course the same media is mum on Michelle Obama’s extravagant trips all over the world at tax payers’ expense, while the Obama administration is directly responsible for causing millions of American women to lose their jobs.  Who is really waging that war on women?  

With all of that said, I expect and want the media to ask tough questions of Republicans.  I simply wish they would do their jobs as our supposed “fourth branch of government” and also ask some tough but fair questions of our current President and Democrats.  Following are some questions that need to be asked of President Obama accordingly.  Don’t hold your breath expecting Brian Williams or George Stephanopoulos to come through trying to be real journalists at this point though.  Anyway, on to the never-to-be-asked questions.

1.) An American border patrol agent and hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered by Mexican drug cartels as a direct result of our government knowingly providing weapons to them via Operation Fast and Furious.  Attorney General Eric Holder has seemingly perjured himself and is in danger of being found in contempt of congress for his testimony on the matter, and yet you still stand by him, Mr. President.  Don’t you think, in light of Mr. Holder’s obfuscation and contradictory testimony on the matter, that you should ask for his resignation?  Further, when were you made aware of Operation Fast and Furious?

2.) In 2010 you said Solyndra, a company that donated heavily to your political campaign, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Now Solyndra is bankrupt and has cost the taxpayers over $500 million on loans that your administration was specifically warned might never be repaid if you did go through with the loans. How do you respond to citizens who say this is just one of many examples of evidence of corruption and crony capitalism in your administration?

3.) You and your Democrat allies in Congress ramrodded through a very unpopular health care mandate with very little public input or debate, despite your assurances that all of it would be transparent and broadcast on C-Span.  Instead you removed $500 Billion from Medicare to fund your new healthcare mandate, gave numerous exemptions of the law to various large corporations and campaign donors (including congress) and subsequently caused an increase in health care premiums and poorer coverage nonetheless.  Since this program has not stood up to the claims you made regarding its efficacy, the fact that it is likely going to be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in June, and its massive unpopularity with Americans on the whole, shouldn’t you work with Republicans in congress to repeal this law and craft new legislation that truly addresses our health care needs?

4.) Upon taking office, the national average for gasoline was $1.89 per gallon.  It now stands at $3.72 a gallon.  You have constantly demonized the domestic oil industry, seriously curtailed offshore drilling, completely blocked drilling in ANWR, and rejected the complete construction of the Keystone Pipeline.  Since these high fuel and energy prices have the greatest detrimental effect on the poorest of Americans, can you tell us how much higher you anticipate driving these oil prices, Mr. President?

5.) Considering the fact that the Occupy Wall Street movement has been protesting against the richest 1 percent of Americans and big Wall Street corporations, and considering that you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any president in American history while being in the top 1 percent of the richest American wage earners, aren’t you exactly the type of politician that these folks are wanting to remove from office, sir?

6.) Would you please tell us why you think the Nobel Committee awarded you the Peace Prize after having served only one month in office, especially considering that you would have had to have been nominated before even having taken office for this prize? 

7.) During your 2008 campaign, you made bipartisanship one of your central themes, along with hope and change.  Despite that, you have routinely pushed through some of the most controversial of bills through congress with very little or no Republican support.  Further, you spent practically no time negotiating with Republicans to reach a compromise on many of these key pieces of legislation.  In fact rather than tone down the partisan rhetoric, you have amped it up with statements like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”  Between such inflammatory statements and a continuous drumbeat of blaming your predecessor for every problem well over three years into your administration, can you honestly say you put forth any effort to pursue bipartisanship?

8.)  For the first time in history, America has lost its AAA credit rating under your administration.  Do you take any blame for this, and what do you think you might have done differently to have prevented this from happening?  Further, what are you currently doing now to restore our AAA credit rating?

9.)  Despite Medicare running deficits and its current path already rapidly leading towards insolvency, you decided to cut $500 Billion from the program in order to fund your Obamacare plan.  Don’t you think it is irresponsible to cut money from an already struggling plan that millions of seniors depend upon in order to fund an unconstitutional and risky entitlement plan that has thus far only increased the costs of personal health care, Mr. President?

10.)  In July of 2011 you were quoted as saying, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.”  You have already spoken approvingly of the possibility of a value added tax and have intimated that you will let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year thereby causing a de facto tax increase for millions of middle class Americans.  With the economy in the current poor state it is in, do you think raising taxes on Americans is the responsible choice to pursue?

11.)  In light of the fact that the Democratic-led Senate has not passed a budget in over three years now and that your own recent budget was voted down unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike in the House in a 0 to 414 vote, don’t you think your plans for the nation are wildly out of touch with what average Americans want, sir?

12.)  Many prominent and renowned scholars have concluded that your stimulus plan was a complete and utter failure.  Considering that the money spent on that stimulus cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined, can you please tell us specifically what we gained by spending all of that money?

13.) Your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus package was critical to keeping the unemployment rate below 8 percent.  After having passed the stimulus bill accordingly, we have not seen unemployment dip below 8 percent for over three years now.  Considering the real unemployment number and the amount of people no longer in the work force that are consequently not even counted in the unemployment figures, doesn’t this mean that your stimulus bill failed and was a huge waste of taxpayers’ money?

14.)  What did you mean when you told Russian President Medvedev to tell incoming Russian President Putin to give you some space and that you would be more “flexible” to negotiate regarding America’s missile defense after you won re-election?  The implications of the statement are that you would be further willing to decrease or eliminate our missile defense system then when it wouldn’t jeopardize your reelection chances.  Being that you already reneged on deploying a theater missile defense system to protect Europe as promised to our allies of Poland and the Czech Republic, do you intend to continue weakening our national defense if reelected so as to win approval from our nation’s adversaries?

15.)  An allegation has recently been brought to light by your former pastor Reverend Wright that you offered to pay him $150,000 to remain silent and not attend any public speaking engagements during your 2008 election campaign that might cause further harm to your election chances.  Would you please explain this, sir?

16.) During the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you initially refused foreign assistance to contain the spill, subsequently mandated a shutdown of all off shore drilling, and then made permitting of future oil rigs exceptionally onerous.  Despite this, you offered $2 billion in loans of American taxpayer dollars to Brazil in order for their national oil company Petrobas to begin drilling in their waters.  You stated that you wanted for the United States to be their best customer.  Why would you wish to eliminate American jobs and increase our energy prices while assisting a foreign nation to expand their oil drilling?

17.) When many Iranians started their uprising against their repressive government and were subsequently squashed by them, why did you choose to not even speak out in their defense, let alone decide to not “interfere in their internal conflict”, and yet found it necessary to “lead from behind” by helping the French overthrow the Qaddafi regime in Libya, despite it having no major national interest for America?

18.) Why do you consistently hire communists, socialists, and other such extremists in your administration such as Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Dr. Donald Berwick, and Carol Browner just to name a few, sir?

19.) You said if you couldn’t fix the economy within three years of taking office that you would “be a one term proposition” president.  In light of the fact that the economy is still broken by nearly every measurable standard, do you think it is fair for you to run for office again with the same failed policies as your agenda to try and “fix” the economy yet again, Mr. President?

20.)  By what authority did you nationalize private auto makers, fire their executives, appoint your own leadership teams, tell them what cars they will and will no longer make, and then renege on these companies’ financial obligations owed to bond holders in favor of giving ownership to the campaign contributing United Auto Workers union?  GM alone cost taxpayers $14 Billion dollars.  With the lawful mechanisms in place for bankruptcy to reorganize these companies, doesn’t your government take-over of these car companies instead smack of the very worst of Marxist policies, sir?

21.)  How do you reconcile the usurpation of many American’s first amendment constitutional rights to the freedom of exercise of their religious faith when you mandate that they must pay for things such as sterilizations and abortifacients which are in direct contradiction with their consciences or religious faith?

22.)  Mr. President, you stated during your campaign in 2008 that shutting down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would be one of your first priorities.  Now as we come to the end of your first term in office, nothing has been done regarding Gitmo.  Would you please explain your seeming change of mind on this matter, sir?

23.)  Mr. President, all Americans congratulate and salute you in the killing of Osama bin Laden.  That said, why did you endanger Seal Team 6 by publicly congratulating them in the execution of this mission?  Further, why did you not wait until all evidence collected was exhausted to root out more of the al Qaida network before announcing the successful mission to the public? 

24.)  Don’t you think questioning Governor Romney’s possible decision regarding the killing of bin Laden had he been president at that time is politicizing the issue in a way that you would have previously abhorred?

25.)  Sir, you rightly questioned President Bush about his reckless spending and the adding of $4 trillion dollars to our national debt.  You decried his “borrowing of money from the bank of China” and the burden that this would place on American families and our children.  You called President Bush’s spending “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”, and indeed it was.  In light of that how do you justify your adding of nearly $6 trillion dollars to the national debt in less than four years in office, Mr. President?

26.)  You criticize Mitt Romney for his greedy predation and subsequent destruction of jobs at a steel mill via Bain Capital, but the truth of the matter is that Mr. Romney had left Bain long before that happened and instead the leader of Bain at that time who is now a huge bundler donor for your campaign was in charge.  Don’t you think you owe Mitt Romney and the American people an apology for falsely accusing him for something for which you are guilty, sir?

27.)  It has been increasingly rumored that in light of the shaky political ground upon which your administration now stands that you are considering dumping Joe Biden in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as your running mate in order to re-energize an apathetic Democratic base this Autumn.  Can you please confirm or deny the validity of this rumor, Mr. President?

28.)  During the 2008 campaign, you promised that your administration would not hire lobbyists, and yet your executive branch is brimming with them.  Further, you hired former Lehman Brothers’ executive and tax cheat Tim Geithner as your Secretary of the Treasury.  How do you reconcile the disconnect between your promised words and your actual deeds, sir?

29.)  Why have you upset the checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government by issuing myriads of executive orders when you were unable to get your agenda passed otherwise through congress?  Do you acknowledge that this is an extra-constitutional usurpation of authority that is not delineated to you in our supreme law of the land sir?

30.)  In an interview in 2004 after winning the US Senate seat for Illinois, you said that you “believe in knowing what you are doing when applying for a job” and that you would essentially have to start running for a national ticket right then with no experience if you decided to go that route.  You stated that you were not a believer in following that path.  What made you change your mind and run for president instead of following your own convictions when you knew you did not have the qualifications or experience to be president in 2008?  In light of the exceptional difficulties you have had with your administration in this first term, do you think that you would have been better off to gain more experience and at least finish your first term in the senate before running for national office after all, sir?

It would be nice to find a main-stream media journalist that had the intellectual integrity to ask any of these questions of our president, regardless of their own political ideologies or party affiliations.  It would be really nice if the president would actually live up to his promise of being the most transparent administration in history and actually give a honest and sincere response if any of these questions were asked of him.  But then that dream is like some amorphous mist which one failingly tries to grasp.  One can only hope that the egregious and pernicious dealings of this corrupt and anti-capitalistic administration have not gone totally unnoticed by a majority of voters this fall, despite the complete dereliction of duty of our supposed independent main stream media to tell the truth about their naked emperor and messiah.  We shall see this November if a majority of Americans have come to this same conclusion that I have despite the media’s failure to do its job.  I suspect and indeed pray that they have, for America cannot withstand four more years of this caliber of governance and hope to still survive with our economy and our God-given liberties preserved.

Memorial Day Tribute

The Knights of Columbus produced this short video in honor of those that have served and paid the ultimate price in defense of our freedom.  May God bless all of those that served, and especially those that died protecting our God given liberties on this Memorial Day and always.

http://bcove.me/e42dnk3o

The Forthcoming Elimination of Americans' First Amendment Rights

A forthcoming denial of our foremost basic and precious God-given right, as specifically articulated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, is soon to be eradicated by the same federal government that is sworn to uphold and protect that Constitutional right for all Americans.  President Obama’s administration has called, via the continuing implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), for all health plans to mandatorily cover contraceptives (including two abortifacients) and sterilizations as part of an upcoming expansion of “women’s services”.  The problem is that many people of faith find these “services” to be morally wrong and contrary to the dictates of their faith.

 

This is particularly the case with the Catholic faith.  In fact, this last Sunday a letter was read at Mass for nearly all of the parishes throughout the United States to explain the Church’s opposition to this law and how it directly contradicts the Church’s moral convictions regarding contraception and the sanctity of life.  Further, the Church called for Catholics to oppose the regulation and to fight to have it rescinded completely.

Within the first amendment to our Constitution lies the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  I’ll begrudgingly grant that the federal government has reasonably protected the first part of that right, but they now have absolutely missed any semblance of protecting that right as regards the second part.  If an institution of faith, such as the Catholic Church, is forced to offer a health plan that MUST offer “services” which it finds diametrically opposed to the dictates of its faith, how is the government protecting the free exercise of their religion?  In fact, government becomes the very instrument that would cause the violation of that God-given right.  And indeed, as our founders knew and stated, all of our rights are endowed by our Creator, not by decree of the government.

Now it is true that our federal government has stated that these new regulations include an exemption for all “religious” employers; however, that employer must primarily employ people of its own faith, primarily serve only people of its own faith, and be primarily involved in the inculcation of the tenets of that faith; consequently, such a standard would not exempt Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools from this onerous and evil law.  Indeed, the exemption is so narrow that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that even our Lord Jesus Christ would not qualify for it, as he tended and cared to those outside of the faith also throughout his life and ministry.

President Obama clearly stated during the drafting of the Obamacare legislation that there would be an adequately encompassing exemption within it that would allow people whose conscience or moral convictions were violated by the law to abstain from its requirements.  It would seem that President Obama was less than truthful here.  Indeed, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced on January 20^th that the administration was proceeding with this new regulation which will take effect on August 1^st of this year.  She did grant a one year extension to “religiously affiliated non-profit groups” in order for them to figure out how to “adapt” to the regulation, as she put it.

When asked about this issue yesterday at a White House press briefing, spokesman Jay Carney stated, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here.”  He continued, “The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventative services.”

The fact is that a health care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not condemn a woman to pregnancy any more than not providing free diet-pills would condemn her to obesity.  Further, the idea that pregnancy is an illness or disease that must be prevented or eradicated further shows the degradation of our culture in its valuing and cherishing of human life, particularly in a nascent form.  But that, again, is not the primary issue involved here.

Now there are many folks, sadly even within the Catholic Church, that disagree with the church’s teachings on contraceptives and even abortion, and thus think this law is good accordingly.  Well no one has asked that people outside of the Catholic faith to believe in this teaching, even though millions of others still do.  It is enough that we Catholics believe this as part of our faith.  What should concern every last single American is NOT whether contraception, sterilizations, and abortions are necessary or good, but rather that the Constitutional right of a group of people to believe contrary to that and wishing to live their faith accordingly are not being permitted to do so by force of law.  A constitutional right is being rescinded for the largest Christian group in America.  That is the issue at hand and one that should frighten every American.  If the government is allowed to curtail the free exercise of religion, what other constitutional right can it some day down the road renege its support and protection thereof that might affect you?

Many folks, myself included, are dumbfounded as to how such an egregious abuse of government power that usurps our most basic freedom is being allowed to happen at all, with nary a peep from the press or the public at large.  Frankly, I suspect the implementation of this pernicious regulation by the Obama administration is done absolutely by design and with full knowledge and intent of the ramifications of it.  President Obama knows, and the Catholic Church has now pretty much confirmed it, that the Church will NOT violate God’s law and their own moral convictions to satisfy man’s law.  The result will be, assuming that the government does not back down, that Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools will no longer offer health insurance to it employees and their families.  That means millions of uninsured people will be directed towards the coming exchanges and government healthcare roles.  THAT has been the design behind this regulation from the beginning.  It is, as Obama stated years ago, the necessary incremental implementation of a state-run and mandated health care system for all, for the common good, of course.

So what is an American of good conscience to do about the necessity of protecting our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion?  Well, the first thing would be to call your congressman, senators, and the White House.  Demand that congress passes HR 1179/S.1467 “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”.   Further, you can sign a citizen-created petition on the White House web site (lower right hand corner of site at this link) telling President Obama that you do not approve.  Again, this is NOT an issue about contraceptives or abortion; it is about the exercise of one’s religious beliefs as articulated in the Constitution and given by God.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1809 when he stated, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”  He was right.  Hopefully millions of good folk, Catholic or not, will also be right and stand up against this pernicious constitutional violation against ALL Americans accordingly.