Obamacare Violates Catholic's First Amendment Rights

Is that a prayer at a graduation ceremony? Is that a nativity scene on public property? Oh, no! Is that a cross memorializing fallen soldiers at a park? Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state!

Wait, Obamacare mandates the Catholic Church to provide contraceptives and abortions to their employees and patients in their hospitals? Screw separation of church and state! Screw separation of church and state!

The hypocrisy of liberals is breath taking. Obama’s lapdog, Jay Carney, is chasing his tail in defense of this abomination:

“I understand that there have been objections and that some people disagree with us and we are going to work with institutions that have concerns here,” Carney told reporters. “But I think it’s important to note here that we believe these services are important and that American women deserve to have access to that kind of insurance coverage regardless of where they work.”

Stupid government mandates like this, is one of the reasons health care cost so much. Just because the church refuses to provide women with contraceptives and abortions doesn’t mean they can’t pay for it themselves. The federal government is using this canard to impose their will on the American people. No one is being refused access.

The ACLU is always quick to sue over separation of church and state issues. I sure as hell don’t hear anything from them when the federal government is actually violating the First Amendment. And probably never will.

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wh-women-deserve-have-catholic-church-buy-them-sterilizations-contraceptives-and

Rick Steves' Politically Correct, Multi-Culti take on Moorish Spain

I enjoy watching Rick Steves’ travel show on PBS. So, when he featured Toledo and other cities of Spain, I was curious to see how he would incorporate the Moors in his presentation. Needless to say, it was politically correct and inaccurate.

Mr. Steves spewed the same old line that the Moors were benign conquerors, who ushered in an era of enlightenment; where Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived in peace and harmony for seven hundred years, only to have their utopia crushed by piggish, northern Christian kings hell bent on their reconquista.




This multicultural rewriting of history is complete nonsense; the Moors where brutish overlords. Here is an excerpt from an essay written by Bat Ye’or and Andrew Bostom that was published by Jihad Watch in 2004:

Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest. Most churches were converted into mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a strong faction of royal Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.

Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis - like elsewhere in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains; many abandoned their land and fled to the towns. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and crucifixions* would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing.

By the end of the eighth century, the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced Malikism, one of the most rigorous schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and subsequently repressed the other Muslim schools of law. Three quarters of a century ago, at a time when political correctness was not dominating historical publication and discourse, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, the pre-eminent scholar of Andalusia, wrote: "The Muslim Andalusian state thus appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation."

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur'an 5:33*.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20 000 families expelled. Feuding was endemic in the Andalusian cities between the different sectors of the population: Arab and Berber colonizers, Iberian Muslim converts (Muwalladun) and Christian dhimmis (Mozarabs). There were rarely periods of peace in the Amirate of Cordova (756-912), nor later.

Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.

What an enlightened people! I can’t imagine why anyone would want to kick the Muslims out of Spain with that record of peace and tolerance. What in the hell were the natives thinking?

To read the rest of the Jihad Watch article, click on the link below. And to read about the reconquista the following link:


Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/andalusian-myth-eurabian-reality.html

http://www.historyofjihad.org/reconquista.html

Obama Says He Deserves Second Term to Fundamentally Change America

In a Super Bowl Sunday interview, Barack Hussein Obama lamented the limitations our founding fathers imposed on the executive office via our Constitution.

"What's frustrated people is that I've not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction," Obama said.

"And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on," he added.

The president defended his record, arguing that he has been successful despite his confrontations with Congress.

"We've been able to get a lot done. Not as fast as we want; sometimes it's messy; the process is frustrating," Obama said.

I’m sure it’s frustrating for this wannabe dictator's grand vision of fundamentally changing the United States of America. Our founding fathers tried to shield us from ambitious tyrants who would abuse their authority, and do it “for the good of the people.”

The Anti-Federalist was prophetic in their warnings of ambitious men like Obama. This particular passage by the pseudonymous author Cato is revealing:

It is remarked by Montesquieu, in treating of republics, that in all magistracies, the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration, and that a longer time than a year would be dangerous. It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic. The deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents. This tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious, and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, gives him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs; he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country. And here it may be necessary to compare the vast and important powers of the president, together with his continuance in office, with the foregoing doctrine -- his eminent magisterial situation will attach many adherents to him, and he will be surrounded by expectants and courtiers. His power of nomination and influence on all appointments; the strong posts in each state comprised within his superintendence, and garrisoned by troops under his direction; his control over the army, militia, and navy; the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt; his duration in office for four years -- these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position, that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin his country.

Hence the many czars, government bureaucrats, agencies, and supplicants that are dependent upon Obama’s patronage. And here is a particular passage that presaged Obama’s contempt for the advise and consent clause in Article II:

Though the president, during the sitting of the legislature, is assisted by the senate, yet he is without a constitutional council in their recess. He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites, or a council of state will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments, the most dangerous council in a free country. . . . The language and the manners of this court will be what distinguishes them from the rest of the community, not what assimilates them to it; and in being remarked for a behavior that shows they are not meanly born, and in adulation to people of fortune and power.

During the interview, Obama said he wasn’t done and deserved a second term. Isn’t that what all tyrant’s say?

Source: http://thehill.com/video/administration/208775-obama-im-getting-better-as-time-goes-on-at-being-president

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/antifederalist/67.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-on-super-bowl-sunday-i-deserve-a-second-term/2012/02/05/gIQA9elMsQ_blog.html?hpid=z1

Georgia Judge Rules Children of Foreigners Can Become President

Last week, a Georgia judge ruled in favor of Barack Obama’s “natural born” status based on an Indiana court case Arkney v. Governor. Judge Michael M. Malihi stated this in his decision:

Indiana court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens regardless of the citizens of their parents.

So basically, any foreigner who happens to squat on American soil even though they have no allegiance to this country -- maybe even foster hatred of our institutions and peoples -- their child can become president of the United States. In other words, a terrorist like Anwar al-Awlaki has every right to become commander-in-chief of our armed forces. Isn’t that comforting?

Anwar al-Awlaki’s parents were Yemeni citizens who came to the United States on student visas. Anwar just happened to be born in New Mexico. Does anyone doubt the animosity this man had for his “country?” Does anyone doubt that this man wanted to kill his “fellow countrymen?”

A rogue ruling on the 14th Amendment has set a dangerous precedent and now we have judges forsaking our founding fathers vision of natural law and rights. And because of precedent (stare decisis) we have invited a nest of vipers to conspire and obtain one of the highest offices in the country.

Let’s give a golf clap to the Indiana and Georgia courts for opening the door wider for a future president Anwar al-Awlaki. Their rulings give a whole new meaning to “We are the world. We are the children.”


Source: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html

http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/judge-says-obama-can-be-on-georgia-ballot/

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_KEK8-LWmzhNWQ4MmI2ZGUtZDMwYi00ZGU4LTkxZTUtZjNkNjNhOGY2YWQ4&hl=en_US

The Muslim Brotherhood's Grand Jihad

The Arab Spring is turning into a Muslim Brotherhood nightmare. And Obama is their biggest cheerleader.

ACLU Bullies North Carolina's General Assembly

The ACLU is ramping up their anti-Christian jihad. They have just sent a letter to North Carolina’s General Assembly, warning them to not mention Jesus Christ in any of their formal invocations.

RALEIGH – Bolstered by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision not to intervene in a case involving prayer at government meetings, the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union warned the General Assembly Thursday to curtail religion-specific invocations at its sessions.

“We recommend that you adopt a policy to ensure that the NCGA halts the practice of opening sessions with sectarian invocations,” Katy Parker, the group’s legal director, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose office represents state government in legal matters.

One prominent North Carolina pastor sees the letter as the first sign of wider consequences from a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to let stand an appeals court’s ban on sectarian prayer at meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commission.

“This is a radical interpretation, an extreme interpretation, of the First Amendment,” said the Rev. Mark Creech, director of the Christian Action League.

According to the ACLU, freedom of speech isn’t part of the First Amendment, especially if you’re a Christian. One has to ask who funds these bullies and what is their origin? The following two videos give insight into this anti-American organization:








In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore, that the Bill of Rights restricted the federal government, and had no bearing on the states. It wasn’t until the 20th century that we began to see the misuse and abuse by federal judges, particularly through a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. It’s through this Trojan horse that the ACLU and their anti-American conspirators are suppressing freedom of religion and speech.

The sovereignty of states and individual freedom has been under attack for decades. If we are to escape the grasp of totalitarian organizations like the ACLU, and limit the powers of the federal government, then we must repeal the 14th Amendment.


Source: http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/ncwire/aclu-warns-prayers-legislature-meetings-897635

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Advises Egyptians that U.S. Constitution is an Outdated Model

You know our country is in trouble when a Supreme Court justice tells citizens of another country that the U.S. Constitution is antiquated and no longer legitimate, and a more appropriate model for the modern age is South Africa’s, or Canada’s.

I’m not making this up. Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave that advice to a group of Egyptians via an interview, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time - that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

[...]

I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that's one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.

I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

[...]

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

[...]

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

This isn’t the first time that Ginsburg has publicly shown contempt for our constitution. In 2005, she openly advocated for the right of judges to use foreign law in their decisions; in effect, installing a judicial oligarchy. And again in 2009:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

This woman shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. Better yet, the court shouldn’t be the sole arbiter of all things “constitutional.” The federal judiciary has been on a power grab since its inception. It’s about time we put a “check and balance” on this rogue institution.

Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3295.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/politics/02ginsburg.html