Where is Our Catholic Yom Kippur?

 

 

 

 

Where is Our Catholic Yom Kippur?

 

 

We Catholics in New York enjoy the ?high holy days? of our Jewish neighbors, and are inspired by the seriousness and sincerity with which they approach their feasts. Join me in wishing them God?s blessings on their special days!

They began their observance last week with Roshashana, the Jewish New Year, and will conclude evening and tomorrow with Yom Kippur, the great Day of Atonement.
The message of their celebrations, if I understand it correctly, is one of spiritual renewal, fresh starts, and repentance. Our Jewish friends pray, fast, reflect, resolve, ask God to forgive their sins as they repent, and start anew with festive meals and gatherings with family and friends!
Not bad at all!

 They are only being faithful to their Scriptures. God so often coaxed His Chosen People, ?Come back to me with all your heart!? How is that done? God tells us: ?A humble, contrite heart I will not spurn.?

There it is again: repentance!

God the Son learned from his Father, because Jesus made repentance the core of His invitation to His followers.

What?s that mean? Simply put, it means turning away from sin and turning to the Person, message, salvation, and call to discipleship of Jesus.

We Catholics used to be constantly aware of this repentance!

Reminisce with me . . .

. . . An examination of conscience and act of contrition prior to falling asleep at night;

 . . . frequent confession;

. . . Friday abstinence from meat as an act of penance for our sins, in union with our Lord?s death on that Friday called ?good.?;

. . . ?Ember Days? ? - remember! ? - at the change of each season, with fasting and the invitation to the Sacrament of Reconciliation;

. . . Fasting on the vigil of holy days, so we could feast all the better on the day itself;

. . . Never receiving the Eucharist if conscious of grave sin, without first approaching the Sacrament of Penance;

. . . First Friday union with the Sacred Heart of Jesus through confession and Mass;

. . . First Saturday Mass and rosary in response to our Lady?s call at Fatima to conversion of heart and repentance;

  . . Fasting from food at least three hours before Holy Communion;

 . . . And, of course, the season of Lent, intended as a forty-day Yom Kippur.

 Am I on the wrong track in thinking that most of this is now gone?

Now, I admit, customs, traditions, practices change. Often it?s good when they do.

 What can?t change is the call to repentance and conversion of heart at the very core of the Jewish-Christian Scriptures, and of our traditions. The how we respond might change; that we do penance cannot change.

Our Jewish friends have not forgotten about repentance and conversion of heart, as is so obvious in New York these ?high holy days.?

Have we Catholics forgotten it?

 

 

 

Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights” of Muslims?

Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights” of Muslims?

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”
A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.

JOIN TODD’S FACEBOOK FAN PAGE!

The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus,” he told Fox News.

A spokesman for Catholic University released a statement to Fox News indicating they had not seen any legal filings — but would respond once they do.

“Our faithfulness to our Catholic tradition has also made us a welcome home to students of other religions,” said Victor Nakas, associate vice president for public affairs. “No students have registered complaints about the exercise of their religions on our campus.”

In a 2010 interview with National Public Radio, university president John Garvey acknowledged that they don’t set aside prayer rooms for Muslim students.

“We make classrooms available, or our chapels are places where they can pray,” he told NPR. “We don’t offer Halal meat, although there are always meals that conform to Halal regulations, that allow students to do what they want.”

Banzhaf said that it is technically not illegal for Catholic University to refuse to provide rooms devoid of religious icons.

“It may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice,” he said. “They do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope is not very conductive to their religion.”

As for the creation of a Muslim student group, Banzhaf said the university has an association of Jewish students – so why not a Muslim group?

“I think they are entitled as a matter of law to be able to form a Muslim student association and to have the same privileges as associations,” he said. “I think that most of them would much prefer to have a place to pray – that they are not surrounded by various Catholic symbols – a place that is more conductive to their religious beliefs than being surrounded by pictures of Popes.”

Garvey, in his 2010 interview with NPR, addressed that issue.

“It’s just not something that we view as an activity that we want to sponsor because we’re a Catholic institution rather than Muslim,” he said.

Patrick Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that promotes Catholic identity among Catholic schools, seemed stunned by the complaint.

“I don’t know what the attorney wants them to do – if he wants them to actually move the Basilica or if the Muslim students can find someplace where they don’t have to look at it,” he told Fox News.

Catholic University, he said, is a Catholic institution.

“One wouldn’t expect a Jewish institution to be responsible for providing liturgical opportunities for other faiths and I wouldn’t expect a Catholic institution to do that,” he said.

“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” he said. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially saying Catholic University cannot operate according to Catholic principles.”

Read coverage from Catholic University’s student newspaper by clicking here.

Obama Supporter Interviews Her 2008 Self

Just like that viral video where the guy interviews his 12-year-old self. But with Obama. And sadness. And regret.

Article from the Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal Sizes Up Obama

A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which
today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America.


by Alan Caruba

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think
he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and
doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some
group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking,
half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name
and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his
facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a
very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before
the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he
was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If,
indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his
mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist
with a small 'c'" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting
on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a
legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state
because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable
political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid
for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence
or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he
first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he
selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that
nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him
before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He
took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state
with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where
agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he
had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real
substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having
the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the
presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy.

He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very
distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of
1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to
defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with
him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris
Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed
against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, 3 full years into his presidency, all of
those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him
unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a
talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly
became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of
statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to
"wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the
Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any
student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It
knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on
his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the
slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with
really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political
experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat
Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never
about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned
at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme
leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment
about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard
professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to
conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu
Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since
compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated
extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part
of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our
detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were
known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could
even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11
a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an
obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having
anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack
on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following
day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any
problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away
the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack
Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people
who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce
a birth certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny
access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in
our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a
make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what
do you do when the dummy is President of the United States.

We the people are coming!

Mitt’s G.K. Flair

 

 

 

Mitt Romney gave a pretty spirited (all around — he went off script after being booed for saying he’d repeal the president’s health-care law) speech to the NAACP convention it. He ended it with this tribute to his father and our Father:

It wasn’t just that my Dad helped write the civil rights provision for the Michigan Constitution, though he did. It wasn’t just that he helped create Michigan’s first civil rights commission, or that as governor he marched for civil rights in Detroit – though he did those things, too.
More than these public acts, it was the kind of man he was, and the way he dealt with every person, black or white. He was a man of the fairest instincts, and a man of faith who knew that every person was a child of God.
I’m grateful to him for so many things, and above all for the knowledge of God, whose ways are not always our ways, but whose justice is certain and whose mercy endures forever.
Every good cause on this earth relies in the end on a plan bigger than ours. “Without dependence on God,” as Dr. King said, “our efforts turn to ashes and our sunrises into darkest night. Unless his spirit pervades our lives, we find only what G. K. Chesterton called ‘cures that don’t cure, blessings that don’t bless, and solutions that don’t solve.’”
Of all that you bring to the work of today’s civil rights cause, no advantage counts for more than this abiding confidence in the name above every name. Against cruelty, arrogance, and all the foolishness of man …

There’s sure something to that

Why Is Obama Offering All Women Free Sterilization?

No previous president ever promoted a giveaway more peculiar than Barack Obama's mandate that all health care plans must offer free sterilizations to all women -- but not all men -- capable of breeding.

This mandate is Obama's defining act as president -- just as his adamant opposition to a bill that would have defined a born baby as a "person" was his defining act as an Illinois state senator.
Obama's Department of Health and Human Services proposed the mandate last August and finalized it in January. It takes effect Aug. 1.
The mandate says health care plans must provide without cost-sharing "all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity."
So, what does sterilization do to a woman? And why does Obama want all women "with reproductive capacity" to be offered one for free?
Specifically, sterilization mutilates part of a woman's body so it can no longer carry out its natural and healthy function.  Cont.Reading


Comments

It is going to get worse. One of the top priorities of the so called "One World Order" run by UN, who loves Obama, is to reduce the world population... ALL KINDS OF CONTRACEPTIVES, PAID FOR BY TAX PAYERS AND A HUGE HUNK WILL COME FROM THE U.S. ABORTION IS AND WILL BE INTRODUCED INTO ALL THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES , THEY WILL BE TAUGHT AND ENCOURAGED....OBAMA IS THE MAIN FORCE FOR THIS TO BECOME A PRIORITY.

 

A federal judge in Mississippi has ordered an extension of his temporary order to allow the state's only abortion clinic to stay open.

The order will be in place until the judge can review newly drafted rules on how the Mississippi Department of Health will administer a new abortion law.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires all abortion providers in the state to be certified obstetrician/gynecologists with privileges at local hospitals.

Supporters of the law say it is intended to protect women from unscrupulous practitioners; opponents say it's another step to outlaw abortions in the state.

He was an American boy, born in America.

A Power No President Should Have

 

Should any President have the power to target and kill a 16 year old American citizen without having to tell anybody why he did it?

This is not an anti-Obama thing, although the irony of murderous ways abounds, this is about unchecked executive power with the self-proclaimed right to decide which American citizens should live and which should die.

Obama supporter Tom Junod at Esquire rightly questions the whole thing.

Let's start there. He was an American boy, born in America. Though he'd lived in Yemen since he was about seven, he was still an American citizen, which should have made it harder for the United States to kill him.

It didn't.

It should at the very least have made it necessary for the United States to say why it killed him.

It didn't.

His name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and he was 16 years old when he died — when he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, by the light of the moon. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also born in America, who was also an American citizen, and who was killed by drone two weeks before his son was, along with another American citizen named Samir Khan. Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country — they had both gone to Yemen and taken up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Awlaki had proven himself an expert inciter of those with murderous designs against America and Americans: the rare man of words who could be said to have a body count. When he was killed, on September 30, 2011, President Obama made a speech about it; a few months later, when the Obama administraton's public-relations campaign about its embrace of what has come to be called “targeted killing” reached its climax in a front-page story in the New York Times that presented the President of the United States as the last word in deciding who lives and who dies, he was quoted as saying that the decision to put Anwar al-Awlaki on the kill list — and then to kill him — was "an easy one."

But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn't on an American kill list. Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninusla. Nor was he "an inspiration," as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone "operational," as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.

He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.

 More

It is not sufficient to say that these guys are bad guys and bad things happen when you declare war on the US.

The Supreme Court just ruled that life without parole for minors constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, but killing them without trial or court order is okey dokey?

This is a power no President, no matter how well intentioned, should have. 

 

 

 

 

Justice Roberts' Tax Ruling: An Analysis

John Roberts' Travesty, Point by Point
By Quin Hillyer
Wednesday, July 4, 2012

There is a good reason why not even most liberal commentators are applauding the actual legal reasoning Chief Justice John Roberts used to avoid striking down the ObamaCare law: The "reasoning" is thinner than unleavened bread, and crumbles to dust not just upon gentle handling, but merely under the weight of a piercing gaze.

Let us count the inanities, inconsistencies and constitutional/statutory infirmities of the key section of Roberts' decision, which ruled that the ObamaCare mandate-and-penalty is a "tax," and a constitutionally permissible tax at that.

First, much has been made of Roberts' assertion that something that is not a tax for purposes of something called the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) actually is a tax for constitutional purposes. In truth, this is the least indefensible of Roberts' intellectual apostasies. It is possible, as he demonstrated from precedent, to have two different standards for when something qualifies as a "tax." The problem is not with the theoretical (if exceedingly rare) concept of two different legal standards, but with Roberts' tendentious application of it.

The very example he uses to prove his point that two standards can apply actually argues against calling it a "tax" in this particular case. Roberts cited the Drexel Furniture case from 1922 – but, to quote from that case, "[T]here comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment. Such is the case in the law before us…. Congress does achieve the [effect of a penalty rather than a tax] by adopting the criteria of wrongdoing and imposing its principal consequence on those who transgress its standard."

Obviously, that is exactly what happens in ObamaCare as well.

Second, although Roberts went on to discuss other aspects of the Drexel Furniture case, one of which was something called a scienter requirement (meaning a conscious or knowing violation), he then blithely distinguished ObamaCare from it by saying the health-care law has no explicitly expressed scienter requirement. This is nonsense – because in short order, he explained another reason the mandate does not carry a "penalty" is specifically because it allows citizens a conscious choice to ignore the mandate (and pay the government fee instead). So which is it, a conscious violation or not? He can't have it both ways. Scienter existing de facto is still scienter, whether or not it is explicitly named.

Third, Roberts says the penalty can be deemed a tax largely because the Internal Revenue Service – a tax-collecting agency – collects it. In Drexel, he explained, the fact that part of the enforcement came from the Department of Labor – a non-tax-collecting agency – made it therefore not a tax. Oh, really? In that case, why isn't it significant, as the four conservative dissenters note, that "the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act's 'Revenue Provisions.'?"

If Roberts cares so much about where a function is located, then why doesn't he care that the law itself locates the mandate in a Title not dedicated to revenues? After all, in another section, Roberts himself says that "the essential feature of any tax" is that it "produces at least some revenue for the government." This mandate, however, is meant to discourage revenue, because it is designed to impel everybody to buy health insurance and thus avoid paying any penalty at all.

(For that matter, why isn't it significant that ObamaCare's mandate, like the Drexel penalty, is partially enforced by an agency other than the IRS? The Obama administration's own high court brief notes that the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services are "the two agencies to which Congress assigned authority to administer" the mandate.)

Fourth, Roberts makes the extraordinary claim that "Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS" – and that the IRS is forbidden from using criminal prosecution to penalize those who refuse the mandate. The problem here is that the IRS can withhold income tax refunds from those who refuse to pay the penalty, and it can choose to apply ordinary income taxes to the penalty first, before crediting the citizen with having paid his due income taxes – and then the IRS can impose a penalty for failing to pay those taxes, and then prosecute or garnish wages for failing to pay that penalty.

In effect, just as funds are "fungible," so too are the enforcement mechanisms of the IRS fungible so that, in the long run, there are indeed some hugely "negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance."

Fifth, Roberts posits a hypothetical situation involving the government requiring "that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient windows must pay $50 to the IRS…. No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congress's power to tax." But that's not true at all. I know lots of people who would say this is a penalty, not a tax, and that it was wholly outside of Congress' powers. (More on Congress' powers in a moment.) Think about it: Have you, dear reader, ever in your life been assessed a tax specifically because of something you did not do? Of course not.

Sixth, Roberts discusses the constitutionality of such a "tax" by rejecting the plaintiffs' complaints that the penalty would amount to an unconstitutional "direct tax" (if it were a tax at all) – but Roberts himself never takes the next step of identifying which sort of tax it actually is, if not a "direct" one. Nor does he bother explaining how it can be constitutional if it is another form of taxation. This is all rather abstruse, but the Wall Street Journal absolutely blew away Roberts' failure to identify what sort of tax it is, and his apparent belief that Congress' taxing power is infinitely elastic.

Seventh – and this is a real howler – Roberts makes this absurd assertion: "First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution." This misses the point entirely. A capitation tax is one of the "direct taxes" discussed above, and is assessed equally per person. It is the person, not the inactivity that is being taxed.

What is at issue with ObamaCare is not that individuals are trying to avoid taxation via inactivity, but that the government is "taxing" – actually, "penalizing" – only the inactivity. People avoiding the mandate aren't avoiding a tax through inactivity, they are avoiding a purchase of a private service (insurance) they do not desire to have. Government has never "taxed" the decision to remain inactive in any sphere, at any time.

Eighth, as I have argued elsewhere, Roberts makes the dreadful mistake of wildly conflating tax breaks or incentives on ownership or activity with a new tax on inactivity (as if the two – a tax on the one hand, and a tax exemption on the other – are among the same species and breed of beast). He seems to think that just because Congress can offer a tax "incentive," such as a new home-owner's exemption from property taxes, this is in the same ballpark as taxing the refusal to buy a product. That's crazy. The property tax is generally applicable, and already in existence before the tax break. But there's no generally applicable "health insurance tax" from which purchasers of insurance are exempt.

(In that light, let's go back to energy-efficient windows. In congressional testimony in March of this year, Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said this: "Historically Congress has induced purchases through tax incentives or by conditioning other government benefits on purchases. If the government's position is correct in this case, these workarounds were clumsy and inefficient solutions to a problem Congress could have more easily solved by directly compelling purchases…. Instead of offering incentives like Cash for Clunkers or tax credits for energy-efficient home improvements, Congress could have required individuals owning non-energy-efficient vehicles or homes to exchange or upgrade them. If the government truly had this simple and direct way of achieving its goals, it would have exercised it long ago, and for emergencies far more pressing than health care reform.")

Ninth, Roberts skates over what should be an absolute requirement to determine if the fee for non-purchase is intended to penalize a desired lack of behavior – which would make it invalid as a tax – by writing that "More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures." That doesn't, of course, excuse him from examining the regulatory intent at all – and, as is almost incontrovertible, the mandate's penalty was intended by Congress far from primarily as a revenue measure, but rather as a way to compel behavior. Such an intention makes the penalty anything but a tax, and anything but an allowable use of Congress' enumerated powers.

****

All of which is to say that Roberts has conjured up an unskilled magician's attempt at multiple sleights of hand. As has been well discussed elsewhere, Roberts himself has acknowledged that accepting the penalty as a tax is hardly the "most straightforward" or "most natural" reading of the law. Nonetheless, he explains (citing precedent), "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." But here, again, he stretches precedent completely out of all reasonable context.

The maxim to choose an interpretation of a law that would accept the law as constitutional, over an alternative interpretation that doesn't, is meant to apply in cases where the two interpretations are equally or near-equally reasonable. Here, though, as we have seen, Roberts had to strain and stretch and twist and skate and float and use misdirection in order to somehow, some way, pretend to impose a plausible interpretation on an assertion that is not even in the same logical solar system as interpretations that are "straightforward" and "natural."

If Congress wanted to create a taxing system to fund ObamaCare or to incentivize insurance purchases, it could have done so. This isn't just a matter of changing labels; it would have required a significantly different scheme. As the conservative dissenters noted, "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty…. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry."

John Roberts didn't defer to Congress in the ObamaCare case; he just re-wrote the law (on the mandate and on Medicaid) by himself in order to save Congress' handiwork from its own infirmities. This isn't judicial minimalism; it's judicial meddling. It is both unsightly and unseemly. And it probably did lasting damage to

More

Religious Freedom vs. "That's Not Fair"

From the White House, A Mandate Update

Normally, local-TV interviews at the White House tend to be ho-hum, starstruck affairs at which genuinely newsworthy developments are few and far between.

Six months since the Obama administration announced a sweeping contraceptive mandate, however, and days after much of the US church concluded two weeks of prayer for religious liberty -- an effort largely spurred by the HHS proposal's reach into Catholic institutions -- a reporter from New Orleans' CBS affiliate, WWL, asked the President about the policy earlier today during an availability intended to focus on an East Room announcement of enhanced tax-cuts.

Here, the POTUS' exchange with WWL's Karen Swensen....


Over recent weeks, the mandate -- and its subsequent "accommodation" announced by the Democratic White House -- have been deemed insufficient by two of the administration's key church allies: the national office of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association, the latter's support of the Affordable Care Act having proved crucial to the bill's passage over the objections of the US bishops.

10 Great Tips To Help You PRAY (not just SAY) The Rosary!

I’ve always found praying the Rosary to be difficult. Although I love the Blessed Mother and understand the importance of the devotion, it just doesn’t come easy to me. In reality, I have no problem SAYING the prayers, the problem arises in transforming the words into a heartfelt prayer. Furthermore, many books tell us how to SAY to Rosary, with only a few instructing us how we should PRAY it. In an attempt to discover the “secret” of this beloved prayer, I’ve done a lot of research and uncovered 10 great (I can say that in all humility because they’re not mine!) tips to help you PRAY (not just SAY) the Rosary!

1. Less Is More – In his book, The Rosary of Our Lady, Msgr. Romano Guardini offers the following advice:

“It is not necessary to ramble through the whole Rosary; it is better to say only one or two decades, and to say them right.”

Talk about removing the pressure! I’ve always struggled to make sure I complete the entire Rosary, even if it meant that I wasn’t paying attention. Now I realize that quality is more important than quantity.

2. You Are Not Alone – A great proponent of Marian devotion, St. Louis de Montfort urges us to be aware of our company while praying the rosary. In The Secret of the Rosary, Montfort reminds us that, when we pray the Rosary, we should put ourselves in God’s presence and imagine that He (along with the Blessed Mother) is watching us and that our guardian angel is standing to our right. If we say the prayers well, our angel will use them to make crowns for Jesus and Mary. Thinking about this before beginning to pray helps us to realize that we are doing A LOT more than just repeating pious words!

3. Watch What You Say – St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, contributes a simple, but often overlooked suggestion. He encourages us to pronounce each Our Father and Hail Mary clearly and without rushing. In doing so, we will better express our love for Mary and Jesus. When praying the Rosary, it’s easy to fall into the trap of mumbling and our rushing through the prayers. Remembering that the Our Father was handed down to us from Jesus and that most of the Hail Mary is taken directly from Scripture should help us to recall that the words DO mean something!

4. Been There, Done That – When we look at Mary’s life, we sometimes overlook her many struggles. Like us, Mary was forced to endure suffering and difficulties, often without a lot of explanation. Being the Mother of God didn’t make her all knowing. The Bible tells us that Mary experienced confusion and had to seek understanding through prayer. In her book, The Splendor of the Rosary, Maisie Ward (Catholic author, publisher and wife of noted apologist Frank Sheed) stated:

“In the Rosary we rejoice, sorrow and triumph with Our Lady as she walks the same path we have to walk. But now she has reached the end.”

When we pray the Rosary, we should remember that Mary understands our problems and confusion. By meditating on the events in her life and the life of her Son, we can obtain help for our daily struggles from someone who is now in a place where we’d like to someday be!

5. Listen To The Word – In his Apostolic Letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae (On The Most Holy Rosary), Blessed Pope John Paul II recommends that we supplement our Rosary meditations with Bible reading. After announcing the individual mystery, the late Holy Father encourages us to read an appropriate Bible passage. While this is not always possible (if we are praying while walking or driving, for instance), we can still mentally recall the details of an appropriate Bible story. This underscores the importance of becoming familiar with Sacred Scripture.

6. Savor The Repetition – Sometimes it feels as if praying the Rosary is just “repeating a bunch of words”! In fact, one of the criticisms of the Rosary is that it is nothing more than “vain repetition”. In his book, The World’s First Love: Mary, Mother of God, Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen addresses those who consider the rosary to be monotonous. Using the analogy of a husband telling his wife “I love you” or a mother proclaiming “you’re a good boy” to her child, Sheen stresses that the words mean something different at each point in time that they are repeated. In the same way, each time we pray the Rosary, we are saying “I love you” to God, the Trinity, to Jesus and to Mary. With each successive bead (or decade) the meaning shifts as we contemplate a new aspect of Jesus or Mary’s love.

7. Do Whatever He Tells You – Praying the Rosary, no matter how devoutly, is never a substitute for following the commands of Jesus and His Church. The Rosary should spur us on to live the mysteries in our daily life. In his book, The Sermons of St. Francis de Sales on Our Lady, St. Francis de Sales had this to say:
“The worldly-minded imagine that devotion to Our Lady usually consists in carrying a rosary in their cincture. It seems to them that it is enough to pray it a number of times without doing anything else. In this they are greatly mistaken. For our dear Mistress wants us to do what her Son commands us (John 2:5) and considers as done to herself the honor we give to her Son by keeping His commandments.”

8. Think – In the preface of Father Peyton’s Rosary Prayer Book: The Family That Prays Together Stays Together, Fr. Patrick Peyton reminds us that the Rosary is more than a series of prayers to be recited. Rather, it is “a series of thoughts to be dwelt on, to be turned over in the mind, to be applied in daily life.” While we are saying the words of the prayers, we should be meditating upon the mysteries. That was a hard concept for me to understand, but it’s the key to unleashing the power of the Rosary.
9. Grow In Virtue – Mother Angelica loves the Rosary. In her book, The Prayers and Personal Devotions of Mother Angelica, she discusses how to use the Rosary to grow in virtue:

“If you’re not making progress in one virtue, say your Rosary and meditate on that virtue as Our Lord practiced it. I cannot get over my faults and weaknesses if I don’t substitute those faults and weaknesses for something of God. This is precisely why the life of Jesus and the reading of Scripture and the rosary never seem to change us – why we remain the same: Because to change you need to admire someone other than yourself.”

10. Ask Mary For Help – This one’s so obvious that it’s easy to overlook! This simple, but powerful suggestion comes from a list (Tips On Praying The Rosary More Devoutly) put together by The Association of the Miraculous Medal in Perryville, MO. Before beginning the Rosary, we should ask Our Blessed Mother to help us pray devoutly.

Although the Rosary follows a simple pattern, it can be a very challenging prayer to master. Rest assured that many of the Saints struggled with it too. If you find it difficult to pray the Rosary, try out these tips and see what happens. It might take a little time, but eventually your persistence will pay off. The next time you pick up your rosary beads, imagine that you’re holding Mary’s hand and taking a trip to visit Jesus. For when we pray the Rosary, that’s exactly what happens!
“The Rosary is the most beautiful and the most rich in graces of all prayers; it is the prayer that touches most the Heart of the Mother of God…and if you wish peace to reign in your homes, recite the family Rosary.” (Pope Saint Pius X)

For More

Jokes For Today

INTERESTING!!!!!!!!

Without an introduction - he speaks for himself...

I try my best not to be too judgemental as we all makes fools of ourself from time to time but, this is really funny!

When you are faking a pose for a photo opportunity

...at least get the handset turned in the right direction!!

if he listens through his mouth, does that mean he talks out his *****?

PRICELESS!

by : Bonnie Williams

10 reasons why jobs market even worse than weak June employment report

View Enlarged Image

Nonfarm payrolls rose by just 80,000 in June, slightly worse than expected and the third straight month of sub-100,000 job growth. The jobless rate held at 8.2%. The employment report was disappointing. Here are 10 reasons why the jobs market is even worse than the headline figures.
1. Unemployment has topped 8% for 41 straight months. Last time above 8% - December 1983.
2. The jobless rate actually makes the labor market look better than it actually is. The rate only counts people who want a job but don't have one. But the labor force participation rate was 63.8% in June, just above near modern-era lows. (It was 66.2% in January 2008 and 67.3% in April 2000). Otherwise, unemployment would be around 11%.
3. The employment-to-population ratio for those aged 25-54 dipped to 75.6% in June, down sharply from 80% in January 2008. Many economists left and right view the core employment ratio as one of the cleanest views of the labor market, because it includes those who have stopped looking for work while excluding the bulge in retirees and young adults in school.
4. Chronic unemployment. The average length of unemployment rose to 39.9 weeks in June, close to recent peak. It was 17.4 weeks at the January 2008 peak and 23.9 weeks in June 2009, when the recession officially ended. Long-term joblessness is particularly bad because skills erode or become obsolete, leading to permanent losses in income.
5. The U.S. added 225,000 jobs in the second quarter vs. 677,000 in Q1. That was the smallest quarterly gain since Q1 2010 — excluding the Q3 2010 post-Census decline. June's gain of 80,000 is not enough to absorb new workers to prevent the unemployment rate from rising over the long term.
6. Nonfarm payrolls are 4.935 million, or 3.6%, below their January 2008 peak.
7. This is already the longest jobs recession since the Great Depression at 53 months. Payrolls aren't on track to reach the old highs until June 2015, assuming the sluggish economic expansion lasts that long.
8. Private sector "doing fine"? Private-sector employment still down 3.9%, or 4.502 million. Government jobs overall are down 1.9%, with federal jobs (ex post office) up 10.7%.
9. Entrepreneurial activity fading. The number of startup firms has crashed from pre-recession highs, still near levels previously seen in the early 1980s, when the number of establishments was far lower. Establishments less than a year old, including those belonging to the same firm, totaled 556,553 in 2010, according to the latest Commerce Department data. That's down 26% from the peak of 747,278 in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of employees at startups has plunged, with a greater share of new firms with no employees — one-man shops. Very small startups are less likely to invest or to grow, a bad sign for future hiring.
10. Gross hiring. The monthly payrolls report refers to net job gains — hiring minus the number of people who were laid off or quit. Layoffs are near decade lows. Actual gross hiring fell to 4.175 million in April, the most recent month in Labor's JOLTS survey. That's the lowest since last July. Weak gross hiring reflects companies remaining cautious. It also makes it harder for the unemployed to find work, which is probably one reason why unemployment duration is so high.

More

Keeping America Awesome

Why is America so awesome?

Is it because we tend to win our wars? Is it because we consume a disproportionately high percentage of the world's natural resources? Is it just that we appear to rule the world, getting into everyone's business whether they want us to or not? Is that what makes us so great?

No, not really.

We did not originally intend to be one big-@$$ country, but began as a union of “free and independent States.” Even as the Constitution provides for a strong central government, the several States are not merely arbitrary administrative jurisdictions. They enjoy limited sovereignty over their own affairs. Each and every one of them has been the place of refuge for people from all over the world. The best, the brightest, the most ambitious, the greatest dreamers the world has to offer -- all come here, more than anyplace else. (Yes, even you, Canada.)

So today, there will be hot dogs and hamburgers on the grill, and families headed to the pool. And tonight, here in the Nation's capital city, there will be fireworks on the National Mall. Over a hundred thousand people will be on the grounds, watching a concert with top-name stars, one that they could just as easily see on public television. The celebratory display will be repeated, if on a smaller and humbler in great cities and little hamlets throughout the land. Together, they will celebrate a great experiment, an idea, one that still works, still draws the world to itself, in spite of everything.

When the Nation's founders finished their work, someone asked Benjamin Franklin what had been created. “A democracy, if you can keep it.” In this election year, Americans frustrated with the current political situation will look to the elections for a savior, someone with all the answers. But we cannot deceive ourselves like we did when we tried that approach four years ago. We must concede that the work of keeping America as a great nation will not be one of a single-person-as-panacea. It will be that of each and every one of us. If our "free and independent States" are less free, less independent than they were intended to be lately, it is because we sat back and allowed someone to take that freedom away from us, and because we lack the resolve to take it back. Are we going to settle for that by this year's election day?

The intentions of Harry Truman notwithstanding, the buck doesn't stop in Washington anymore; it stops with who we see in the mirror. Remember that before you get your hopes up, America. Stay tuned, and stay in touch.

‘Liberty Lovers’ As Terrorists Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Homeland Security Report Lists ‘Liberty Lovers’ As Terrorists


Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty” deemed domestic threat


Tuesday, July 3, 2012

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Entitled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 (PDF), the study was produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. The organization was launched with the aid of DHS funding to the tune of $12 million dollars. Cont. Reading

Stoned Dearborn Christian Speaks

The video “American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI” from this year’s Dearborn Arab Festival has gone viral. The group at the center of the incident, Official Street Preachers, is led by Ruben Israel. I sat down for a candid conversation and interview with the man behind this video and got an inside exclusive look at what really happened, including a frightening vehicular attack that wasn’t captured on video.
The 2012 Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan ran this year from June 15 – 18 over the Father’s Day Weekend. Like every other year, incidents that occur there become YouTube sensations, but nothing like what happened this time around. Cont. Reading

The killing fields in America have commenced

 Read the following shocking article:

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/obama-impersonator...

First, Andrew Breitbart mysteriously dies just before he was going to release videos about Obama’s college shenanigans. They announced that he died of natural causes at the age of 43--even before an autopsy was conducted! Now, Steve Bridges (Obama’s impersonator who Obama hated) mysteriously dies three days later. Again, they announced that this Obama impersonator died of natural causes at the age of 48--even before an autopsy was conducted! Who's next? Will it be Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer? Sheriff Arpio is conducting an investigation on the veracity of Obama's birth certificate, which have been proven to be a forgery and a fraud. Governor Brewer wrote in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast, about Obama. He was thoroughly ticked off about what she wrote. Apparently, he is awfully thin-skinned.

So, when is the FBI going to connect the dots and arrest Obama and his Chicago gangsters? They are out to kill everyone on their Enemies List. This is the Clinton trail of alleged murders all over again. We must put a stop to all of the killing of those who stand in their paths. Should they get Arpaio and Brewer next, it will be enough proof to make an arrest of the usurper and dictator in the White House.

---

These are the alleged deaths connected in some way or another to Barack Obama. The lame-stream media (LSM) will never investigate, report, and give credence to any of them as the LSM are lapdogs of the Obama administration. The Democrats would never rat on Obama. The Republicans are too afraid to investigate and discuss any of these deaths. Snopes.com is paid by George Soros and is a lapdog of the Obama administration, so don’t expect anything factual and corroborative coming from them. Therefore, none of these deaths get the kind of investigation that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is giving to Obama’s birth certificate, which has been proven to be a forgery and a fraud. That’s why speculation that Arpio’s death is coming—as is Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who also offended Obama in her recent book, Scorpions for Breakfast.

The Obama Death List

The following is a partial list of deaths of persons connected to Barack HUSSEIN Obama during his time inside the United States. Read the list and judge the preponderance of evidence for yourself…

SARAH BERKLEY – Author of “The Jihad at the Ballot Box” – a book examining Obama’s relationship with radical Islam. Died in a mysterious car crash in 2003.

RUSSELL MCDOUGAL – Former FBI operative, January 23rd, 2007. McDougal was known to hold sensitive information about meetings Barack Obama had with arms smugglers. His wife was murdered March 2006 after he went public with his initial reports. His father died July 8, 2006 four hours after McDougal presented his findings on the Savage Nation (Dr. Michael Savage talk show host). Suffered administrative retaliation after reporting discussions by jihadist groups concerning Obama to his superiors.

RODRIGO VILLALOPEZ, a television news camera man who shot the footage of Obama describing small town voters as “bitter” and “clinging to their guns” during the primary season.

BRIAN GORING – A defense attorney for Obama patron Antoin “Tony” Rezko during his trial for extortion and bribery. Died of apparent “natural causes.”

MERCEDES HUGLEY, one of Obama’s many white, female conquests while at Harvard. Filed sexual assault charges against Obama for date rape in 1990. Because “date rape” was not considered a crime like it is today, she ended up dropping the charges. Two years later, she was found dead of an apparent cocaine overdose.

TAMIKA HILL – A former secretary for Obama’s office in Chicago was murdered July 6, 2005 at a rib shack in the south side. Hill had spoken off the record with a reporter from the Chicago Sun Times about meetings Obama had with black militants in the city. She was murdered before she could ever be properly interviewed.

HASAD AL SHAREEZ – FBI informant. Reported to his handler in January 2001 that he had a tape about of a person named simply “B. Hussein” meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohatma Atta in Prague. Was found shot in the basement of a mosque in Dearborn, MI in October, 2001.

DARSANO RAHARDJO – Childhood classmate of Barack Obama when he attended a madrassa in Indonesia. Was found with his head cut off in a Jakarta alley way in 1970. Many children at the school attributed Rahardjo’s murder to the young Barack Obama. It was likely done as an initiation ritual, since Islam demands that a boy spill another’s blood before the age of ten to prove their loyalty to Allah.

REVEREND DAVID MANNING – Former head of the Trinity Baptist Church in Chicago. Was murdered during the apparent robbery of a catfish restaurant in 1972. Shortly afterwards, Rev. Jeremiah Wright took over as head of Trinity and many parishioners (who later left the church) suspected Wright in having a hand in Reverend Manning’s death. Decades later, Manning’s son JAMAL MANNING was found dead of an apparent crack overdose in 2004. It was rumored he was going to bring evidence of Wright’s complicity in his father’s death. His testimony was timed to coincide with Obama’s first senate race.

CHRISTOPHER HARGROVE, A former lover of Larry Sinclair. Found dead in a hotel room of apparent auto-erotic asphyxiation in January 2001. Was said to have been enraged when he found out that Sinclair had cheated on Jackson with Obama in the back of a limousine. To get revenge, Jackson planned to release digital pictures Sinclair had taken of the encounter on the Internet.

PAUL ROTHCHILD – Democrat National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Washington DC in 2003. A “friend and trusted advisor” to senatorial candidate Barack Obama. Dead of an apparent suicide.

CURTIS “POOKIE” JACKSON – Chicago drug dealer. Was the subject of a police investigation in which he was suspected of funneling money to Obama’s many various community projects. Killed in 1998 in an apparent gang murder.

HARVEY KENYON – Head of Obama’s senatorial security team in Chicago. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside of Grant Park in 2005. Kenyon’s son said his father was building a dossier on Obama. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died, the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

SHEILA BAUGH – A Washington DC madam. Died from a gunshot wound. Reported to have a black book of people containing names of influential people who visited the prostitutes in her brothel. One of those names was allegedly Barack Obama.

KEYSHAWN “SPOON” CALWORTH – Was found dead of an apparent heroin overdose May 18, 1997. Was reported to have ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

LAWSHAWNA MARTIN- 26 year old mother of five, a Cabrini Green resident with a history of substance abuse. Told two of her co-workers at the Blue Peppermint Gentleman’s Club that she would have to quit work because she was pregnant again. Strongly implied that the “baby daddy” was Barack Obama. The next week, she was reported missing. No body was ever recovered, but Lawshana has not resurfaced since making those remarks.

BILL FERGUSON- Senior aide to Barack Obama. Found dead of an apparent heart attack.

GANDY BAUGH – Attorney for Obama friend Antonin “Tony” Rezko died by falling out an eightieth story window of the Hancock Tower, January, 2003. His client was a convicted Chinese spy.

DONALD YOUNG and LARRY BLAND - Two gay members of Trinity United Church of Christ who were both murdered in late 2007. No one has ever been arrested. Young's mother believes Donald was murdered because of what he knew about Obama.

KAM KUWATA - A Democrat strategist who witnessed Obama high on drugs backstage at the Democrat National Convention in Denver in 2008. Kuwata also uncovered a scheme in California involving laundering of campaign funds. Kuwata, in his 40s, was found dead of "natural causes." No autopsy was performed, although he had no known health problems.

ANDREW BREITBART – Well-known and respected conservative who had planned to release videos on March 1, 2012, of Obama college escapades mysteriously died on March 1, 2012, at the young age of 43. The death was claimed to be allegedly by natural causes even though an autopsy was not yet performed. He called Sheriff Joe Arpaio by phone 4-5 hours prior to his death. Breitbart was on a walk near his home in the evening when he collapsed and died as reported by an unidentified witness.

STEVE BRIDGES – Impersonator of Obama who Obama disliked immensely because he felt that Bridges offended him. Mysteriously, he appeared to have died of natural causes just two days after Andrew Breitbart’s death also by natural causes. The autopsy had not yet been performed on Bridges, yet he died of natural causes.

The Bill and Hillary Clinton’s death trail is much longer (up to 50). None were also given any kind of thorough, objective scrutiny to pin the Clinton’s to any of them. Again, they were protected by the Democrats, Republicans, LSM, Snopes.com, and the Clinton administration. Nobody hanged the Clintons. Nobody will hang Obama or all of the criminals in the Obama administration. How long are we all going to tolerate these crimes and injustices? Probably forever.



Note:
There are so many unanswered questions about Mr. Obama,not too mention Why Pelosi and Reid ever signed off on Obama to be certified ,birth certified, maybe they too were on the hit list or like the Clinton’s death thereat, this reads like a bad dream...

Did Barack Obama Campaign Threaten Life of Chelsea Clinton to Keep Parents Silent on Obama’s Ineligibility?

April 3, 2012 by da Tagliare

 

Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.

In an exclusive interview by WND, Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.

During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.

She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.

Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof.

This is a powerful video from a lady that has nothing to gain and probably everything to lose by coming forward with her information. It could well ruin her career in Hollywood as so many of the film industry are flaming liberals. It could also cost her her life.

I took note of how she described the Obama campaign’s reign of terror and intimidation and how well coordinated it was. I thought to myself that if they were bold enough to threaten the life of the Clinton’s daughter then have they made similar threats to all of the leading Republicans in both the House and Senate? Is this why Congress has remained so silent ever since Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1st news conference where he provided the American people with the evidence that Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Cards are forgeries?

When you see how blatantly Obama has defied the US Constitution and federal law without any apology or excuses, it’s not hard to believe that he, like every other dictator in history, obtained his position by intimidation, threats and outright violence. Knowing he is capable of this has to make every single American extremely fearful if Obama gets re-elected.

And if the voter fraud will be as prevalent in November as it was in 2008, it seems a sure thing that he will be re-elected. Obama has had the DOJ strike down every voter ID law and any other measure taken, to reduce the chance of voter fraud. They have set the stage for an old fashioned Chicago style election with padded and illegal votes. Wait a minute, he is a Chicago politician, so guess he’s just following local history at a national level.

If he does get re-elected, I’m positive it will mean the end of free elections and free America. We will become another Soviet Union: a land run by an elite group of Marxists who will exploit all of the people for their own personal gain. America, for all intent and purpose will be dead if Obama gets re-elected.