HILLARY CLINTON, DR. JOSEF MENGELE, MARGARET SANGER, ADOLPH HITLER, BILL CLINTON, MEXICO AND OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE

Imagine an American Secretary of State one morning praying at Jerusalem's Wailing Wall and the next evening accepting a eugenics award named for Dr. Josef Mengele.

That is an apt analogy to the repugnant juxtaposition of gestures by Hillary Clinton during and following her brief visit to Mexico last week.

Color photographs and loud captions atop page one of the daily El Universal captured the Mexican public's sense of outraged bewilderment at Mrs. Clinton's visit March 26 to the Basilica of Guadalupe, Catholicism's second most visited shrine after St. Peter's in Rome. The Basilica rector, Monsignor Diego Monroy, stands with Mrs. Clinton and shows her the mestiza Madonna whose story is known to every Catholic schoolchild, an image believed to have been imposed miraculously on an Indian's cloak five centuries ago.

HILLARY CLINTON: Who painted it?

MONSIGNOR MONROY: God.

La Guadalupana is the archetypal icon of Latin American Catholicism. Catholics in the United States as well as in the Latin countries today invoke the Virgin of Guadalupe as the special patron of the pro-life movement.

Was Hillary's public diplomacy fiasco a calculated insult addressed to something she regards as a superstition, or simply the unrehearsed utterance of a person so soulless that she cannot fathom believers' sense of mystery?

A clue to the answer came in the traveling diplomat's next stop after Mexico, Houston, where she accepted the Margaret Sanger Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation.

In Houston, Hillary lauded the very evils that pilgrims to Guadalupe pray to overcome: liberalized abortion laws and making United States taxpayers pay for abortions and abortion propaganda in "developing" countries.

The comparison of Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) and Josef Mengele (1911-1979) is not overdrawn. Even a cursory examination of her life's work and pronouncements shows Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, as one of the most strident and inhumane racists of the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In April 1932, for example, she wrote an article urging "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." Eugenics was a fashionable social policy panacea at that time not only in Hitler's Germany, but also among powerful elites in the United States and other Western democracies.

Hillary Clinton provides the latest manifestation of what Arthur Schlesinger Sr. called "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and "the only remaining acceptable prejudice" -- anti-Catholicism.

Secretary Clinton's words and actions in Mexico and Houston are elaborations of the disconcerting words of President Obama's Inaugural Address, his pledge to "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs" and his gratuitous, unspecific slam against "worn out dogmas."

Nothing is more clear-cut than the chasm separating the Obama-Clinton ideology and programs from Christian faith and tradition and what Pope John Paul II, whose towering bronze image stands beside the Basilica here, called the Culture of Life.


THE ICON AND THE BATTLE-AXE
by Joseph P. Duggan
THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR
March 31, 2009

Joseph P. Duggan served in the Reagan State Department and as speechwriter to President George H.W. Bush. During the 1970s he was assistant managing editor of The American Spectator.
Mr. Duggan is writing and lecturing in Mexico City this spring.

*********************************************


COMMENTS ON JOSEPH DUGGAN'S ARTICLE


Timothy L. Pennell| 3.31.09 @ 7:40AM

Everybody can think what they want, and that includes me. I think that we are paying the price, for turning away from God. There's a Magaret Sanger Award? What's next? A Tiller the Killer Award? Look around. Hollywood spits in the face, of those of us who believe. They MOCK Religion, and GLORIFY everything that is anethema to God. And see where it gets them. They find themselves ADDICTED to Drugs and Alcohol. Their lives are unfulfilling. Their Family Lives, if they even have one, almost always end up in DIVORCE, and the loss of their children. So many of them end up Old, and Alone. And TRADGEDY follows them, throughout their lives. Like the Kennedy Family. The entire Democrat Party, runs on a Platform that defies everything we know about God. And now we have a man in the White House, who would DENY MEDICAL ATTENTION to BABIES, who have survived the Abotionists' knife. For a few more votes. GOD help us .

ga7788| 3.31.09 @ 8:14AM

Hillary is just one of many speakers for the man that appointed them, and why should any of us be surprised. If you look closely you maybe will be able to see the strings that are attached, and are jerked around by the likes of Pelosi, Reed. They make the rules and he stands behing the teleprompter and tells the people how great everything is going to be. Question: Who does he and they work for, the American people or the the Democratic party? I thought we had a President and not a king!
artman| 3.31.09 @ 8:36AM

The Democrat Party used to be a half-reasonable group carefully tip-toeing on the line of lawlessness and constitutionality with a subgroup of radical socialists and anti-capitalists. Now they have become led by this subgroup with lemmings trailing along behind prouder of their party affiliation than loyalty to their own Constitution. Sadly, the followers are so ignorant of the Founders intentions they would not recognize a free nation if they saw it. It is not surprising that an Obama has seized power as every nation always has such a demagogue waiting for a crisis to sway the ignorant and gullible. The surprise is the numbers of ignorant and gullible now populating America.
Mark H| 3.31.09 @ 8:49AM

This is this administration that was supposed to re-gain our respect around the world! Not to worry though. The adults will be back in charge soon enough.
MLG| 3.31.09 @ 9:09AM

At best she was woefully under prepared and did not do her homework as Sec. of State. I can’t imagine that her staff was not given an itinerary; state visits are usually scripted in detail down to the type of water being served in the limo. As Sec. of State she should have been given all the appropriate background information on each itinerary item. This is yet another example of lack of experience at all levels of this administration on even the basics of foreign diplomacy. At worst she is soulless.

Indiana Alex| 3.31.09 @ 9:28AM

Maybe she can go back to Mexico and press the reset botton.

Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 9:29AM

But, but, but. Isn't Hillary the smartest women in the world? It's what we have been told....

LOL


Frank| 3.31.09 @ 9:55AM

How many times is Shrillary going to be give an pass for being woefully unprepared and not doing her homework? Maybe she needs to send the Pope an "overcharge" button too.


Dave| 3.31.09 @ 10:35AM

They teach lawyers to never ask a question if they don't already know the answer.

I guess Hillary missed that class.

Clusiana| 3.31.09 @ 10:51AM

Hillary never heard of the artist.


Skep41| 3.31.09 @ 12:01PM

Hey! Wait a minute! Didnt Hillary say that when she was a Goldwater Girl in her upscale Chicago suburb she used to take time off to go minister to illegal immigrants? How come all these grateful Mexicans whose lives she had such a profound impact on didnt have any images of the Virgin with them? You dont think she might have been making up stories do you? Its just like you right-wingers to attack a veteran of aerial combat in Bosnia who was refused enlistment by the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. This is the Smartest Woman In The World and she's smart enough to know that a bunch of useless retards and low-lifes are just crapping up our lovely planet and causing Glow-Bull Warming. With her hubby circling the world bird-dogging babes and banging beaver (not an endangered species in Bill's World) our esteemed Sec Of State needs all the support from us peons that she can get. And I've heard about that Virgin Of Guadeloupe, she's one of them CHRISTIAN symbols. Have the Obamunists made Christianity illegal yet or are they going to be happy just to make contributions to churches no longer tax deductible? The irony of Margaret Sanger is that her birth control nostrums have been adopted whole-heartedly by the effete, overbred types, who are birth-controlling themselves to extinction while the screaming unwashed masses are breeding like fruit flies. So Hillary is excepting a National Suicide award after she disses the symbol of the burgeoning masses.


Big Jim| 3.31.09 @ 1:37PM

This incident just goes to prove how inexperienced, lazy and down right stupid the Sec. of State really is. Every time she opens her mouth she takes one step back from ever having another shot at the presidency. Therefore brothers and sisters we should rejoice as the clown brings derision upon herself. No doubt, BO is not far behind.

John II| 3.31.09 @ 1:40PM

Dr. Right: Just a quick response. I see your point, but I'm not sure you see the point of the Duggan piece. This story reminds me of an encounter the late John Paul II had in the Vatican with our Boy President of the nineties, the apparent husband of Hillary. The Holy Father, who was trying to plug a few points about human rights and other international concerns, recalled being astonished by Bill's manner. The American president simply wasn't listening, but rather was running his eyes distractedly around the room and up to the ceiling, blinking at the artwork, rather like a slightly unruly 12-year-old.

As Tony says, Hillary should have known. She should have been briefed, at least, by her handlers at Foggy Bottom. But then the briefing, even if available from the religion-challenged secular types who run the State Department, probably would not have jelled in the imagination of Hillary, who, like her apparent husband, is ever preoccupied with matters other than the people who inhabit the world around her.

*********************************************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE IDEAL TYRANNY THE MOST PERFECT SLAVES ARE THOSE WHICH BLISSFULLY AND UNAWAREDLY ENSLAVE THEMSELVES. WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND IT IS US

PLANTATION SLAVES

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." --James Madison, Federalist No. 51

INSIGHT

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." --author Dresden James

LIBERTY

"The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word 'liberal' is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist. ... The Statist ... knows that despite his successful usurpations, enough citizens are still skeptical and even distrustful of politicians and government that he cannot force his will all at once. Thus he marches in incremental steps, adjusting his pace as circumstances dictate. Today his pace is more rapid, for resistance has slowed. ... The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An 'effective' government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. ... The Conservative is alarmed by the ascent of a soft tyranny.... He knows that liberty once lost is rarely recovered. He knows of the decline and eventual failure of past republics. And he knows that the best prescription for addressing society's real and perceived ailments is not to further empower an already enormous federal government beyond its constitutional limits, but to return to the founding principles. A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles."
--author and radio talk-show host Mark Levin in his book "Liberty and Tyranny"

FAITH AND FAMILY

"President Barack Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of his appeals to people of faith. He portrays himself as one of them, a convert who found Jesus and a new purpose for living through community organizing in Chicago. His attempts to portray the audacity of hope, however, have been stymied by the manner in which he has responded to the nation's economic crisis. He may call it 'investment,' but his stimulus package represents old-fashioned government spending. Our children will be left with the legacy of his spendthrift ways. However, to hear Obama tell it, you would think that he was saving our nation's poor by running up deficits. Don't worry about the final bill, he's telling us -- let's live for today. He may even try to wrap his spending package in the guise of Christian charity."
--columnist Nathan Tabor

THE GIPPER

"When a business or an individual spends more than it makes, it goes bankrupt. When government does it, it sends you the bill. And when government does it for 40 years, the bill comes in two ways: higher taxes and inflation. Make no mistake about it, inflation is a tax and not by accident." --Ronald Reagan

OPINION IN BRIEF

"Maybe it's just me, but I find federal legislation titled 'The GIVE Act' and 'The SERVE Act' downright creepy. Even more troubling: the $6 billion price tag on these bipartisan bills to expand government-funded national service efforts. Volunteerism is a wonderful thing, which is why millions of Americans do it every day without a cent of taxpayer money. But the volunteerism packages on the Hill are less about promoting effective charity than about creating make-work, permanent bureaucracies and Left-wing slush funds. ... Taxpayers GIVE their money to SERVE a big government agenda under the guise of helping their fellow man. It's charity at the point of a gun."
--columnist Michelle Malkin

GOVERNMENT

"President Obama inherited from George Bush a $500 billion -- and growing -- annual budget deficit and a ballooning $11 trillion national debt. Obama nevertheless promised us an entirely new national health plan, bigger entitlements in education and a vast new cap-and-trade energy program. But there is a problem in paying for the $3.5 trillion in budgetary expenditures that Obama has called for in the coming fiscal year. Proposed vast additional taxes on the 'rich' still won't be enough to avoid tripling the present budget deficit -- and putting us on schedule over the next decade to add another $9 trillion to the existing national debt. During the Clinton years, we got higher taxes but eventually balanced budgets. During the Bush administration, we got lower taxes but spiraling deficits. But now during the era of Obama, we apparently will get the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes than under Clinton and higher deficits than under Bush. In other words, we -- through our government -- are spending money that we don't have."
--Hoover Institution historian Victor Davis Hanson

POLITICAL FUTURES

"Maybe we have it all backwards. Here's the basic story President Obama wants to tell. The last eight years were an economic disaster because President Bush and the Republicans ignored necessary government regulations and 'investments.' The economic crisis has discredited 'market fundamentalism,' as some liberals call it. Now, thanks to Bush's hands-off approach to the economy, Obama has no choice but to get government much more involved. ... Indeed, Obama doesn't feel compelled to merely remedy the mistakes of his predecessor; he believes it is vital that we renew the New Deal-style economic policies we strayed from when Ronald Reagan was elected. ... What if they're looking at the economy through the wrong end of the telescope? For starters, Bush was hardly a laissez-faire president who ignored Obama's oft-stated domestic priorities. Sure, Bush was more laissez-faire than Obama. But that's not a very high bar. Education spending under Bush rose 58 percent faster than inflation. Medicare spending, thanks largely to Bush's prescription drug benefit (the largest expansion in entitlements since the Great Society), went up 51 percent during the Bush years. Spending on health research and regulation rose 55 percent. Spending on highways and mass transit went up by 22 percent. Maybe that's too little in Obama's eyes, but it hardly validates Obama's fictions about the last eight years."
--National Review Editor Jonah Goldberg

FOR THE RECORD

"[At Obama's last press conference, there] was a question by CBS' Chip Reid about the $2.3 trillion difference in the size of the debt between the Administration's estimates and the Congressional Budget Office. 'Some Republicans,' he said, 'called your budget ... the most irresponsible budget in American history.' Obama may be sitting in the Oval Office and he might have promised to open the post-partisan era, but his answer was: 'First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them.' Return with me now to January 3, 2007 when John Boehner, Republican of Ohio was elected Speaker of the House following the 2006 mid-term elections. Whoa! What? Nancy Pelosi became Speaker? And the Democrats controlled the House? And the Senate? And they have controlled the budget committees for the past two years? So the '$1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit' was adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress? Well, then, which Congressional Republicans could President Obama have been talking about? Must have been those Republican Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees, U.S. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)."
--political analyst Rich Galen

RE: THE LEFT

"When I wrote last week's column, before the AIG fury erupted, I argued that we in Washington should dial back our rhetoric because public passions were already dangerously high -- and we have so many hard decisions in probably hard times ahead of us that we need to face as a united people. Little did I expect that within hours of my writing those words, congressmen would be calling for the names and addresses of AIG employees to be made public -- even though the congressmen had been told that the lives of the employees' children had been threatened as a result of the uproar. Congressmen who would risk the lives of innocent children to save their own political skins are not likely to provide noble leadership in the months and years to come. Sound policy is unlikely to be formed when the screaming voices of a multitude are ricocheting off the legislative chamber's walls. Yet rather than speak to calm the anger and the passion, many of Washington's finest figures fed it. Rather than stand athwart the onslaught, they chose to lead it."
--columnist Tony Blankley

CULTURE

"While the president was away in L.A., the first lady played mentor, with the help of some stars. She organized a round-robin of visits to Washington D.C. schools and a White House event for young girls, to demonstrate to them they could grow up to be anything they chose in America. (You know, that country she had no pride in before her husband's nomination?) ...Michelle, judging by the stars she presented as role models, wants the young women to aspire to be singers and actresses, athletes, 4-star generals and astronauts. There was only one woman CEO or entrepreneur mentioned by media -- Debra Lee, the CEO of the Black Entertainment Network; no women small business owners, no top women sales professionals -- not even difference-makers like school teachers or nurses and caregivers or stay-at-home moms raising successful families. Or even political leaders, like, say the successful governor of a fiscally stable state. Like, say, Governor Sarah Palin. She was one of only two women ever to run for vice-president on either of the two major parties' tickets, and a mom. ... No, Michelle presented Alicia Keyes and Sheryl Crow, actresses Fran Drescher and Phylicia Rashad; a couple of athletes; the first black woman to travel in space; and a celebrity make-up artist. What is so significant here is that nearly all the examples-to-aspire-to presented are primarily supported by the economy; not supporters of the economy. Not creators of innovative products, of companies, of jobs. Not women who started some sort of enterprises from scratch and built them into successful businesses. Heaven forbid we should encourage these girls to grow up to be business owners. Better for them to hope for a spin of the wheel of celebrity via American Idol. Particularly appropriate given our celebrity-president."
--author Dan Kennedy

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

"I sincerely regret that during my college education (many years ago) that I did not have any professor as insightful, intelligent, informed, and easy to understand as Professor Walter E. Williams. His essay, 'States Rebellion Pending,' that you ran in Friday's Digest was wonderful. This gentleman is a national treasure." --Dallas, Texas

"The majority of our problems in the U.S. were bred with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution that made senators popularly elected. At that point, states were no longer represented and both houses of Congress became subject to buying votes with freebees for the voters. The 'teeth' that Walter Williams mentioned are needed with the 10th Amendment laws being passed by states is just to return the Constitution to its original form to have the senators elected by state legislatures. That one thing will restore much in the way of states' rights." --San Diego, California


THE LAST WORD

"This year federal government spending will rise to 28.5 percent of GDP, the highest level ever, with the exception of the peak of the Second World War. The 44th president is proposing to add more to the national debt than the first 43 presidents combined, doubling it in the next six years, and tripling it within the decade. But to talk about it in percentages of this and trillions of that misses the point. It's not about bookkeeping, it's about government annexation of the economy, and thus of life: government supervision, government regulation, government control. No matter how small your small business is -- plumbing, hairdressing, maple-sugaring -- the state will be burdening you with more permits, more paperwork, more bureaucracy. And don't plan on moving. Ahead of this week's G20 summit in London, Timothy Geithner, America's beloved Toxic Asset, called for 'global regulation.' 'Our hope,' said Toxic Tim, 'is that we can work with Europe on a global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight.' 'Global oversight': Hmm. There's a phrase to savor. 'We can't,' he continued, 'allow institutions to cherry pick among competing regulators and ship risk to where it faces the lowest standards and weakest constraints.' Just as a matter of interest, why not? If you don't want to be subject to the punitive 'oversight' of economically illiterate, demagogic legislators-for-life like Barney Frank, why shouldn't you be 'allowed' to move your business to some jurisdiction with a lighter regulatory touch?"
--columnist Mark Steyn

*****

Monday Brief
Vol. 09 No. 13
30 March 2009
Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

*******************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.

ARCHBISHOP CHARLES CHAPUT, SALLY QUINN, NANCY PELOSI, ABORTION AND HOLY COMMUNION FOR NON-CATHOLICS

On Saint Patrick’s Day, Archbishop Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, participated in a symposium with reporters, sponsored by the Pew Foundation in Washington, DC. In the course of the symposium Sally Quinn, the notorius liberal columnist of the New York Times, stated that she, a non-Catholic, had received Holy Communion at the funeral of her friend Tim Russert because of her great respect for him. She asked Archbishop Chaput to comment.

Uncharacteristically, Archbishop Chaput gave a somewhat confused answer in which he stated that he had given Holy Communion to non-Catholics on occasion. I doubt that he ever deliberately gave Holy Communion to a non-Catholic. And I am even more confident that he has never given Holy Communion to someone he knew to be an obstinate and flagrant supporter/enabler of abortion-on-demand.

He mentioned the problem of funerals. It is a problem that funerals are emotionally charged celebrations of the Church’s Liturgy and that frequently the congregation contains both non-Catholics and Catholics who are notorious sinners.
I doubt that any minister of Holy Communion would ever know every person who comes up to receive Holy Communion on such occasions. And so it is possible that non-Catholics would unintentionally be given Holy Communion under such circumstances.

It is important to understand that it is a fundamental teaching of the Church that Holy Communion is not only a CAUSE of unity between the recipient and Christ and His Church, but it is also a SIGN OF THAT UNITY. Therefore, to give Holy Communion to a
non-Catholic is to dissemble, to pretend that there is a unity which really is not there.

Therefore, the practice is to give Holy Communion to anyone who presents himself/herself in the Communion line unless the minister recognizes that person as being a non-Catholic.
In the case of sinners the minister is presented with a problem. No one can judge whether the person asking for Holy Communion is in the state of Grace. Only the individual, and God, knows the answer to that question and so the minister would normally give Holy Communion and not engage in a public questioning of the state of the individual’s soul since the sinner might have recently gone to confession and been absolved of the guilt of his or her sins.

If the person requesting Holy Communion is a notorious and public sinner, scandal would be given to the congregation if the minister were to give Holy Communion. The minister should simply whisper to the person “I can only give you a blessing!” and then give the blessing and not give Holy Communion.

The possibility of difficult situations like those described above can be minimized if a simple announcement is made to the congregation just before the time for the distribution of Holy Communion at weddings, funerals, other such celebrations. An announcement such as:
“It is the discipline of the Catholic Church that only Catholics in good standing may receive Holy Communion because the Church believes and teaches that Holy Communion is both the cause and SIGN of unity with Jesus Christ and his Church. Therefore all others are asked to refrain from coming forward to receive Holy
Communion.”

**************************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution

LEO RUGIENS, AGED TWO MONTHS

GEORGE TILLER, HUMAN BUTCHER OF KANSAS, MAY HAVE HIS MEDICAL LICENSE LIFTED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF KANSAS

Shortly after a 6-member jury acquitted George Tiller of 19 criminal misdemeanor abortions based on illegal financial affiliation with Dr. Kris Neuhaus, the Kansas state Board of Healing Arts is taking the position that he is guilty and they intend to do something about it.

Tiller is heading to an as-yet-unscheduled hearing for license revocation, based on a Dec. 12, 2008 Board petition charging him with fraud, unprofessional conduct and illegally using Neuhaus for 11 abortions in 2003.

This was undoubtedly a move to restore public confidence after embarrassing allegations in this past week’s trial that the former Board director, Larry Buening, coaxed Tiller into collaboration with Neuhaus after Tiller could not find even one out of 100 semi-retired Kansas physicians to provide second opinions for approving abortions after viability.

So why would Neuhaus do what 100 other Kansas doctors wouldn't?

Desperation, and, as Tiller recounted in trial, “She needed the money.”

Even before she completed her medical degree, Neuhaus was drawn to abortionists who had run afoul of the law. She spent part of her residency working with a convicted drug felon abortionist, eventually returning to run his Topeka clinic while he was sidelined for malpractice, drug abuse, prescription fraud, and lying to the Healing Arts Board.

Neuhaus took on additional abortion positions in Wichita and Lawrence, that later imploded due to her documented medical incompetence. Since March of 1999, Neuhaus has been under severe and continuing professional restriction by the DEA and the state Board of Healing Arts, which twice labeled her a “danger to the public.”

Neuhaus Disciplinary Record
Burdened by mandatory drug screenings, quarterly record-keeping reviews, remedial classes, and legal fees from fighting with regulators, Neuhaus was in a precarious position. It was at this same point that Tiller's late-term abortion empire was also in a bind.

A pregnant woman can only obtain a Kansas abortion after viability if two doctors agree she faces an irreversible, substantial impairment. Tiller had been able to secure those mandated second medical opinions until the Healing Arts Board ruled in April of 1999 that both abortion-consulting doctors had to be Kansas-licensed. Since there was nothing physically wrong with the great majority of these women, Tiller could only continue these lucrative abortions if he could rely on Kansas doctors to agree they were required to prevent mental impairment.

Using notes from his personal diary in court, Tiller recounted how he called his long-time buddy Larry Buening to complain that no Kansas doctors wanted to consult for him. As Executive Director of the Healing Arts Board, Buening was the best person to know which Kansas physicians were facing loss of license and might be desperate enough to help Tiller subvert the law. Tiller testified he took Buening’s suggestion to contact Neuhaus and that she eagerly agreed.

Neuhaus' easy role in Tiller’s scheme was to travel to Wichita one day a week to visit with Tiller's late-term clients privately, issue each woman a permission slip, and then return home with an envelope of cash. She could even skip the in-person meeting, talk to the clients by phone and still get paid!

The harder task would be for Neuhaus to hang on to her restricted state medical license, but certainly Buening was in a great position to help out with that. [Until this week, no one outside of Tiller’s circle knew about Neuhaus’ vital importance to Tiller—and Buening’s interest in protecting the arrangement.

But it sure explains why pro-lifers were ignored when they complained to Buening during 1999-2001 that Neuhaus should have had her license revoked, based on news stories and official disciplinary filings at the time.]

This past week, court testimony described how Tiller’s late-term clients were told to bring separate cash for the consultant (Neuhaus) but that they were not told her name. Most of these women were not Kansas residents and it seems unlikely any of them would discover that Neuhaus is hardly a psychologist, only a failed abortionist who now works part-time at a prison.

In court, Neuhaus tried to undermine the prosecutor’s assertion that she acted as Tiller’s employee. She said that she had been free to charge Tiller’s clients whatever she wanted, and when she raised her fee from $250 to $300, he didn't object. But if she were truly an independent, unaffiliated consultant-- objectively reviewing a bona fide medical diagnosis, as required by law--why would she seek Tiller’s fee approval?

Indeed, why would Tiller ever dare complain about such a low price for a medical signature he absolutely needed? Without it, he couldn't collect the $6000 he admitted he charges for each viable baby abortion. During the year in question at trial, 2003, Tiller charged an estimated $2 million just for the 318 viable abortions Neuhaus was supposed to approve. And that’s not counting his additional income from the reported 173 “non-viable” late-term abortions (not needing a second medical signature) or his profit from early-term abortions.

The for-profit collaboration of Tiller and Neuhaus is the misuse of the medical arts that Kansas lawmakers intended to prevent. Certainly Buening helped them pull it off, but the bottom line is that Tiller never desired to secure a formal ruling from either the Healing Arts Board or the Attorney General to clarify the term “affiliation.” Everyone understands that people who directly rely on each other to make money in a work situation, are affiliated.

Moreover, Tiller’s finances depended on obtaining rubberstamp approvals without genuine medical diagnoses, and as such would likely always be in violation of the law. He just wanted a secret way to stay in business without fear of getting caught; and, as Neuhaus blurted out unhappily to the prosecutor, “In 1999, who could have known Phill Kline would become Attorney General?”

Moreover, in 2009, who could have known the state Healing Arts Board would attempt to reclaim its integrity?

*******

“George Tiller Jury Ignored Kristin Neuhaus Abortion Exploitation, Will State Board?”

by Kathy Ostrowski
March 30, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: Kathy Ostrowski is the legislative director for Kansans for Life, a statewide pro-life group that has helped lead the fight against late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. Tiller will be on trial this week for 19 counts of allegedly violating the state's late-term abortion laws.

*************************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.

FULL-SCALE EUROPEANIZATION IS UNDERWAY: HEALTH CARE, DAYCARE, COLLEGE EDUCATION, CLIMATE-CHANGE POLICY, YOU NAME IT - IT HAS STARTED

Back during the election campaign, I was on the radio and a caller demanded to know what I made of the persistent rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. “I doubt it,” I said. “It’s perfectly obvious he was born in Stockholm. Okay, maybe Brussels or Strasbourg.” And the host gave an appreciative titter, and I made a mental note to start working up a little “Barack Obama, the first European Prime Minister to be elected President of the United States” shtick for maybe a year into the first term.

But here we are 20 minutes in, and full-scale Europeanization is already under way: Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized college education, Europeanized climate-change policy… Obama’s pseudo-SOTU speech was America’s first State of the European Union address, in which the president deftly yoked the language of American exceptionalism to the cause of European statism. Apparently, nothing testifies to the American virtues of self-reliance, entrepreneurial energy and the can-do spirit like joining the vast army of robotic extras droning in unison, “The government needs to do more for me…” For the moment, Washington is offering Euro-sized government with Euro-sized economic intervention, Euro-sized social programs and Euro-sized regulation. But apparently not Euro-sized taxation.

Hmm. Even the Europeans haven’t attempted that trick. But don’t worry, if that pledge not to increase taxes on families earning under $250,000 doesn’t have quite the Continental sophistication you’re looking for in your federal government, I doubt it will be operative very long.

Most Americans don’t yet grasp the scale of the Obama project. The naysayers complain, oh, it’s another Jimmy Carter, or it’s the new New Deal, or it’s LBJ’s Great Society applied to health care… You should be so lucky. Forget these parochial nickel’n’dime comparisons. It’s all those multiplied a gazillionfold and nuclearized – or Europeanized, which is less dramatic but ultimately more lethal. For a distressing number of American liberals, the natural condition of an advanced, progressive western democracy is Scandinavia, and the US has just been taking a wee bit longer to get there. You’ve probably heard academics talking about “the Swedish model”, and carelessly assumed they were referring to the Britt Ekland retrospective on AMC. If only. And, incidentally, fond though I am of Britt, the fact that I can think of no Swedish dolly bird of the last 30 years with which to update that gag is itself a telling part of the problem. Anyway, under the Swedish model, state spending accounts for 54 per cent of GDP. In the US, it’s about 40 per cent. Ten years ago, it was 34 per cent. So we’re trending Stockholmwards. And why stop there? In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, government spending accounts for between 72 and 78 per cent of the economy, which is about the best a “free” society can hope to attain this side of complete Sovietization. Fortunately for what’s left of America’s private sector, “the Welsh model” doesn’t have quite the same beguiling euphony as “the Swedish model”. But, even so, if Scandinavia really is the natural condition of an advanced democracy, then we’re all doomed. And by “doomed” I’m not merely making the usual overheated rhetorical flourish in an attempt to persuade you to stick through the rather dry statistics in the next paragraph, but rather projecting total societal collapse and global conflagration, and all sooner than you think.

There are two basic objections to the wholesale Europeanization of America. The easy one is the economic argument. The short version of late 20th century history is that Continental Europe entirely missed out on the Eighties boom and its Nineties echo. A couple of weeks back, the evening news shows breathlessly announced that US unemployment had risen to seven per cent, the highest in a decade and a half. Yet the worst American unemployment rate is still better than the best French unemployment rate for that same period. Indeed, for much of the 1990s the EU as a whole averaged an unemployment rate twice that of the US and got used to double-digit unemployment as a routine and semi-permanent feature of life. Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe in the Sixties and Seventies, is now a country whose annual growth rate has averaged 1.1 per cent since the mid-Nineties; where every indicator – home ownership, new car registrations – is heading down; and in which government agencies have to budget for such novel expenditures as narrowing the sewer lines in economically moribund, fast depopulating municipalities because the existing pipes are too wide to, ah, expedite the reduced flow. Even flushing yourself down the toilet of history is trickier than it looks.

Of course, if you’re one of the seemingly endless supply of Americans willing to turn up at the president’s ersatz “town meetings” to petition the seigneur to take care of your medical bills and your mortgage and the gas in your tank, the Euro-deal looks pretty sweet. When they deign to work, even the French can match the Americans in hourly productivity. Unfortunately for boring things like GDP, the Euro-week has far fewer hours. There are government-mandated maximum 35-hour work weeks, six weeks of paid vacation, more public holidays, and, in the event that, after all that, some unfortunate clerical error still shows the calendar with an occasional five-day week, you can always strike. The upshot is that, while a working American puts in an average 1,800 hours a year, a working German puts in 1,350 hours a year – or 25 per cent less.

It’s tempting to assume these are deeply ingrained cultural differences. “It’s The Good Life, full of fun, seems to be the ideal,” as the Gallic crooner Sacha Distel smoothly observed. But, in fact, until the Seventies Americans and Europeans put in more or less identical work hours. What happened is that the Protobamas of the Continental political class legislated sloth, and, as is the way, the citizenry got used to it. Indeed, the proposed European Constitution enshrines leisure as a constitutional right. Article II-31: “Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid holiday.” There’s no First Amendment or Second Amendment, but who needs free speech or guns when life is one gentle swing in the government hammock?

When American commentators notice these numbers, it’s usually to crank out a why-oh-why-can’t-we-be-as-enlightened? op-ed. A couple of years back Paul Krugman wrote a column asserting that, while parochial American conservatives drone on about “family values”, the Europeans live it, enacting policies that are more “family friendly”. On the Continent, claims the professor, “government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff - to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family.”

As befits a distinguished economist, Professor Krugman failed to notice, that for a continent of “family friendly” policies, Europe is remarkably short of families. While America’s fertility rate is more or less at replacement level – 2.1 – seventeen European nations are at what demographers call “lowest-low” fertility - 1.3 or less - a rate from which no society in human history has ever recovered. Germans, Spaniards, Italians and Greek have upside-down family trees: four grandparents have two children and one grandchild. The numbers are grim, and getting grimmer. The EU began the century with four workers for every retiree. By 2050, Germany will have 1.1 workers for every retiree. At Oktoberfest a decade or three hence, that fetching young lad in the lederhosen serving you your foaming stein will be singlehandedly propping up entire old folks’ homes. Except he won’t. He’ll have scrammed and headed off to Australia in search of a livelier youth scene, or at any rate a livelier late-middle-aged scene. And the guy taking his place in the beer garden won’t be wearing lederhosen because he’ll be Muslim and they don’t like to expose their knees. And, come to think of it, he’s unlikely to be serving beer, either. The EU would need at least another 50 million immigrants – working immigrants, that is (they’re not always, especially with Euro-welfare) – to keep wrinkly old Gerhard and Jean-Claude in the social programs to which they’ve become accustomed.

To run the numbers is to render them absurd: It’s not about economic performance, public pensions liabilities, entitlement reform. Something more profound is at work. Europe has entered a long dark Oktoberfest of the soul, drinking to oblivion in the autumn of the year, as les feuilles mortes pile up all around.

Let’s take the second part of Paul Krugman’s assertion: These “family-friendly” policies certainly give you “more time”. For what? High-school soccer and 4-H at the county fair? No. As we’ve seen, kids not called Mohammed are thin on the ground. God? No. When you worship the state-as-church, you don’t need to bother showing up to Mass anymore. Civic volunteerism? No. All but extinct on the Continent. So what do Europeans do with all that time? Do they paint, write, make movies? Not so’s you’d notice. Not compared to 40 years ago. Never mind Bach or even Offenbach, these days the French can’t produce a Sacha Distel or the Germans a Bert Kaempfert, the boffo Teuton bandleader who somewhat improbably managed to play a critical role in the careers of the three biggest Anglophone pop acts of the 20th century – he wrote “Strangers In The Night” for Sinatra, “Wooden Heart” for Elvis, and produced the Beatles’ first recording session. If that sounds like a “Trivial Pursuit” answer, it’s not. Eutopia turned out to be the trivial pursuit; to produce a Bert Kaempfert figure right now would be a major accomplishment Europe can’t quite muster the energy for. “Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor,” wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. “When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome.”

The key word here is “give”. When the state “gives” you plenty – when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood – it’s not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence – literally so for those Germans who’ve mastered the knack of staying in education till they’re 34 and taking early retirement at 42 (which sounds a lot like where Obama’s college-for-all plans will lead).

Genteel decline can be very agreeable - initially: You still have terrific restaurants, beautiful buildings, a great opera house. And once the pressure’s off it’s nice to linger at the sidewalk table, have a second café au lait and a pain au chocolat, and watch the world go by. At the Munich Security Conference in February, President Sarkozy demanded of his fellow Continentals, “Does Europe want peace, or do we want to be left in peace?” To pose the question is to answer it. Alas, it only works for a generation or two, and then, as the gay bar owners are discovering in a fast Islamifying Amsterdam, reality reasserts itself.

In 2003, the IMF conducted a study of Eurosclerosis and examined the impact on chronic unemployment and other woes if the Eurozone labor market were to be Americanized – that’s to say, increase participation in the work force, reduce taxes and job-for-life security, etc. The changes would be tough, but over the long-term beneficial. But it’s too late for that: What’s “changed” is the disposition of the people: If it’s unsustainable, who cares? As long as they can sustain it till I’m dead. That’s the second and most critical objection to Europeanization: It corrodes self-reliance very quickly, to the point where even basic survival instincts can be bred out of society in a generation or two. In America Alone, I cited a headline that seemed almost too perfect a summation of a Continent where entitlement addiction trumps demographic reality: “Frenchman Lived With Dead Mother To Keep Pension.” She was 94 when she croaked, so she’d presumably been getting the government check for a good three decades, but hey it’s 700 euros a month. He kept her corpse under a pile of newspapers in the living room for five years, and put on a woman’s voice whenever the benefits office called. Since my book came out, readers send me similar stories on a regular basis: “An Austrian woman lived with the mummified remains of her aunt for a year, Vienna police said Wednesday.” In Europe, nothing is certain except death and welfare, and why let the former get in the way of the latter?

It’s interesting that it never occurred to the IMF that anyone would be loopy enough to try their study the other way around – to examine the impact on America of Europeanization. For that, we had to wait for the election of Barack Obama. Which brings us to the third problem of Europeanization: What are the consequences for the world if the hyperpower embarks on the same form of assisted suicide as the rest of the west? In quite the wackiest essay Foreign Policy has ever published, Parag Khanna of the Brookings Institution argued that the European Union was now “the world’s first metrosexual superpower”. And he meant it as a compliment. Mr Khanna’s thesis is that, unlike the insecure American cowboy, Europe is secure enough in its hard power to know when to deploy a little sweet-smelling soft power. Seriously:

The EU has become more effective—and more attractive—than the United States on the catwalk of diplomatic clout… Metrosexuals always know how to dress for the occasion (or mission)… but it’s best done by donning Armani pinstripes rather than U.S. Army fatigues… Even Turkey is freshening up with eau d’Europe… Stripping off stale national sovereignty (that’s so last century), Europeans now parade their ‘pooled power,’ the new look for this geopolitical season…

Brand Europe is taking over… Europe’s flashy new symbol of power, the Airbus 380, will soon strut on runways all over Asia...But don’t be deceived by the metrosexual superpower’s pleatless pants—Europe hasn’t lost touch with its hard assets…Europe’s 60,000-troop Rapid Reaction Force will soon be ready to deploy around the world… Just as metrosexuals are redefining masculinity, Europe is redefining old notions of power and influence. Expect Bend It Like Brussels to play soon in capital cities worldwide.

And on and on, like one of those pieces an editor runs when he wants to get fired and go to Tuscany to write a novel. The Airbus 380 is a classic stillborn Eurostatist money pit, the Rapid Reaction Force can’t deploy anywhere beyond a Europe Day parade down the Champs Elysee, and given that the governing Socialist caucus on the Brussels city council already has a Muslim majority I doubt they’ll be bending it themselves that much longer. This is the logical reductio of the Robert Kagan thesis that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus. It’s truer to say that Europeans are from Pluto, which was recently downgraded to “dwarf planet” status. A dwarf superpower doesn’t have policies, it has attitudes – in part, because that’s all it can afford. An America that attempts Euro-scale social programs would have to reel in its military expenditures. After all, Europe could only introduce socialized health care and all the rest because the despised cowboy across the ocean was picking up the tab for the continent’s defense. So for America to follow the EU down the same social path would have huge strategic implications for everyone else, not least Europe. We would be joining the Continentals in prancing around in Armani pinstripes and eau d’Europe as the bottom dropped out of our hard assets. And Putin, Kim Jong-il, the mullahs et al might not find the perfume as heady as Mr Khanna does.

Even in its heyday – the Sixties and Seventies - the good times in Europe were underwritten by the American security guarantee: The only reason why France could get away with being France, Belgium with being Belgium, Sweden with being Sweden is because America was America. Kagan’s thesis – Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus – will look like paradise lost when the last conventional “great power” of western civilization embraces the death-cult narcissism of its transatlantic confreres in the full knowledge of where that leads. Why would you do anything so crazy? Ah, but these are crazy times: Europeans are from Pluto, Americans are from Goofy.

by Mark Steyn
THE EUROPEANIZATION OF AMERICA
Steyn on America
from National Review
31 March 2009

**************************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.

HERE IS BISHOP TOBIN'S NOW FAMOUS INTERVIEW WITH BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE BUT COULD HAVE HAD IF YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES

WITHOUT A DOUBT
My Interview with President Obama

Posted Feb 12, 2009

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

(The following is an interview I didn't have, but can imagine having, with President Obama.)

BISHOP TOBIN: First of all, Mr. President, congratulations on your election and inauguration. They were certainly historic events that inspired a renewed sense of unity and hope for many Americans.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you, Bishop Tobin. Yes, the goal of my campaign and election was to bring people together, to heal the divisions of the recent past and to inspire new hope for all the citizens of our great country.

TOBIN: I think we’d all agree that your goals of unity and hope are very worthwhile. But for that very reason, many of us were surprised, and even disappointed, that you signed an executive order overturning the so-called “Mexico City Policy” within the first few days of your administration. As you know, your action directs that American tax dollars be used to fund abortions overseas. Why did you have to act so quickly on such a controversial policy?

OBAMA: Well, I believe it was important for me to fulfill the campaign promises I made to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. After all, they’re among my biggest supporters and I don’t want to disappoint them.

TOBIN: But the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions is very controversial. It’s a divisive policy. It violates the conscience of millions of Americans who respect life and oppose abortion. Isn’t that completely contrary to your goal of fostering unity in the nation?

OBAMA: Bishop Tobin, let’s be clear. I said in my inauguration speech that with all the problems our nation is facing we have to overcome narrow ideological positions and move beyond childish behaviors.

TOBIN: But, Mr. President, providing tax money to support abortion – isn’t that in itself an ideological position?

OBAMA: No, not in my view.

TOBIN: But do you consider the heartfelt convictions of pro-lifers to be “childish behaviors?”

OBAMA: Well, not exactly, but let’s move on . . .

TOBIN: Is it safe to assume that you consider the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions overseas to be good foreign policy?

OBAMA: I believe that people overseas should have the same rights we Americans have – the right to kill their children and use abortion as a form of birth control.

TOBIN: But shouldn’t we be using foreign aid for more positive reasons – for example, to provide food, clothing, shelter and medicine to impoverished children?

OBAMA: Bishop, obviously you’re missing the point. If you control the population and eliminate the children, you don’t have to worry about giving them food, clothing, shelter and medicine now do you?

TOBIN: Mr. President, during the campaign you said that you wanted to reduce the number of abortions. And yet now you’re providing American tax dollars to encourage abortions overseas. Isn’t that a contradiction?

OBAMA Let me be clear. During the campaign, I was talking about American babies. People in other countries have to make their own decisions about killing their children, and if that’s what they want to do, I’m willing to help them. But let’s move on . . .

TOBIN: Sir, you’ve taken a very strong stance against the use of torture, a decision that’s been widely applauded. But at the same time, some scientific studies have shown that the procedures used in abortion cause terrible pain and suffering for the unborn child. Isn’t that a form of torture too?

OBAMA: Um . . . let me get back to you on that.

TOBIN: Mr. President, there’s a very good chance that during your term in office you’ll have the opportunity to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court. When that opportunity comes, will you use the support of abortion as a litmus test for their appointment?

OBAMA: I don’t believe in litmus tests for court appointments. But you can rest assured that no one who respects the right to life for unborn children will get anywhere near the Supreme Court.

TOBIN: Mr. President, don’t you see the contradiction in what you just said?

OBAMA: No I don’t, but please . . . can’t we just move on?

TOBIN: Alright, then let’s get to the heart of the question. Mr. President, when does life begin?

OBAMA: That question, Bishop, is way above my pay grade.

TOBIN: Mr. President, you have a consistent record of supporting abortion, and you’ve been called the most pro-abortion president ever. In light of your radical pro-abortion stance, can you and your administration give any hope at all to pro-life Americans?

OBAMA: To quote my favorite campaign slogan, “Yes we can.”

TOBIN: Can you be more specific?

OBAMA: No I can’t. But, Bishop Tobin I see that the clock is ticking away and our time is up. Unfortunately we’ll have to wrap-up our interview.

TOBIN: Thank you for your time Mr. President, and happy Presidents Day.

OBAMA: Thank-you, Bishop Tobin. And please extend my appreciation to all my friends in Rhode Island who voted for me.

WITHOUT A DOUBT
Jesus Wasn’t Always Nice

Posted Mar 26, 2009


BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN
Jesus wasn’t always nice. I had to remember that in responding to some letters I received from readers who were disappointed by my recent article, My Interview with President Obama. Some folks didn’t like the rhetorical device I employed, namely the fictional interview I composed. Others felt that I was too hard on the President when I criticized him for using tax dollars to fund abortion overseas. They said that I was not being charitable as Jesus would have been.
For example, one letter writer complained that I presented the President as a clown. “I resent the insult to our President,” she said. One of my fans from Ohio wrote, “Wow! The venom really drips on this [column] . . . Easy to blast away from the comfort and security of your cemetery hermitage . . . What did you expect to accomplish?” And a third instructed me that “the Bible teaches us to love and pray for our enemies and to turn the other cheek and not attack them . . . Charity is patient and kind. It is not arrogant or rude.”
First I should note that I am seldom offended by people criticizing the things I’ve written. Inspiring healthy dialogue in the Church is one of the goals of my columns. I hope, though, that critics can always distinguish between my personal opinions and the essential teachings of the Church which, as Catholics they are obliged to accept.
I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President’s anti-life actions don’t stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don’t offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.
The other premise of my critics seems to be that because we are Christians we should never be angry or challenge others. We should always be charitable, tolerant, kind and nice, they suggest. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?
Well, in fact, no. The Gospels are very clear that in confronting moral evil Jesus wasn’t at all nice or kind. We usually think of Jesus as a prophet of peace, and indeed He was. But His preaching also created bitter controversy and division. “I have come to set the earth on fire . . . Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Lk 12: 49, 51)
Think of Jesus cleansing the Temple, an incident recorded in all four Gospels. Jesus entered the Temple angrily, confronted the merchants and money-changers, made a whip out of cords, drove them away and upset their tables and booths. Doesn’t sound too charitable to me!
Jesus railed against the towns of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum for their lack of faith, and predicted a terrible judgment day for those towns. “You will go down the netherworld,” He warned. (Mt 11: 23) Doesn’t sound too charitable to me!
And of course there’s Jesus’ withering condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees. He repeatedly called them hypocrites. He described them as “blind guides . . . whitewashed tombs . . . serpents . . . brood of vipers . . . and murderers.” (Cf. Mt, Chapter 23) Doesn’t sound too charitable to me!
There are other examples, but you get the point. In confronting moral evil, Jesus wasn’t nice, kind, gentle and sweet. He lived in a rough and tumble world and He took His message to the streets. He was a fearless prophet who spoke the truth sometimes with harsh and angry language. Jesus’ condemnations infuriated public officials and religious leaders, so much so that they were determined to kill Him. And indeed they did.
In using condemnatory language was Jesus being “uncharitable?” Of course not. It was precisely because He loved people, because He was concerned for their salvation, that He spoke the truth, that He condemned their immoral, sinful behavior.
And that should be the mission of the Church today. Sometimes as Catholics we’re hesitant to challenge the immoral behavior of others, including public officials, because we don’t want to appear judgmental or uncharitable. Our society urges us to be “tolerant” of other people and their behavior, even if it’s objectively wrong. But it’s precisely because we love others that we should never tolerate immoral behavior. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver has written so well, “Tolerance is not an end in itself, and tolerating or excusing grave evil in a society is itself a grave evil . . . And it is not a Christian virtue.” (Render Unto Caesar, p. 145-146)
If the language in my article about President Obama’s funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. It has nothing to do with my personal attitude about the man. Admittedly I’m not a fan, but as I’ve written before, I pray for him and his fine family and I wish him well. As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions. I do so because Christian charity requires me to do so, because I love my country and I believe in the sanctity of human life. As St. Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” (I Cor 9:16)

opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com

****************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.

STATES BEGIN TO DECLARE THEIR SOVEREIGNITY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. ALL STATES NEED TO HURRY AND DO SO

WALTER E.WILLIAMS

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it's the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George's actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance -- perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we've become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants -- has made us easy prey for Washington's tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans' characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

You might ask, "Isn't the 10th Amendment that no-good states' rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?" That's the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they're liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New Hampshire's 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn't obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.

In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled "State Sovereignty Act." Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that's a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the "Federal Tax Fund" and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.

The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.

THE PATRIOT POST.COM

Mark Alexander is away participating in a national security forum.

This week's Patriot Perspective is a guest essay by Alexander's colleague Walter E. Williams.

*********************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because

he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.

ZERO POPULATION GROWTH PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY - THE MORE OUR GOVERNMENT GIVES CONDOMS TO THE POOR OF THE WORLD THE MORE BABIES ARE BEING BORN - ITS CRAZY

In my recent post "IN OUR CONDOM CULTURE NOTHING SCANDALIZES LIBERALS..." I pointed out that for liberals who otherwise worship science, nothing that science offers to show that the use of condoms is a poor solution to the problem of aids in poor countries (no pun intended). Reputable studies by scientists have revealed that the HIV virus is so small that it can easily pass through cheap, poorly made latex condoms. In addition to the porosity of cheap latex condoms there is the problem of breakage and slippage.

If liberals think that our Government and private foundations and charitable organizations supply the poor countries with the same expensive condoms used by the elites of this Country they are practicing self-delusion. Because condoms are supplied to the poor in Africa and other poor regions by the BILLIONS it is obvious that such agencies want to get the biggest bang for their buck (so to speak) and so they buy cheap condoms. The tragedy is that not only are those who rely on condoms for family planning are penalized by unwanted pregancies adding to the horror of rising abortion rates, but many of those men and women relying on condoms for 'safe sex' end up infected with the AIDS virus.

Here is Jay Leno's take on the plan of our government to buy even cheaper condoms for distribution to the poor of the world:

It seems there are those in our government who are operating at cross-purposes.

On the one hand, Congress has authorized the spending of billions to save and create American jobs;

on the other, they are giving those jobs away.

For years the U.S. Agency for International Development has been giving condoms to impoverished nations in order to fight the spread of AIDS.

Those condoms were manufactured by Alatech, an Alabama-based company.

Now, USAID is considering dropping Alatech in favor of two other companies -- one in South Korea, the other in China, resulting in the loss of approximately 300 American jobs.

A representative of USAID said the agency would save three cents per condom if they buy those manufactured overseas.

That's all well and good, but as "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno quipped,

"If Chinese condoms are so good, why are there over one billion Chinese people?"

- The Patriot Post / Friday / 27 March 09

******************

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal

REGARDLESS OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S GOOD INTENTIONS, KNOWING THAT SOCIALISM ALWAYS BRINGS A SOCIETY TO A BAD ENDING OUGHT TO CONCERN AMERICANS

KARL MARX

Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit [Barack Hussein Obama] is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.

The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not. It isn't Liberalism and it isn't mere Leftism. Frankly, those terms (and their opposites) should be jettisoned entirely, because they have become too antiquated to describe 21^st Century politics. The political designations of Left and Right date back to the French Revolution, when Revolutionaries sat on the Left side of the French Parliament, and the anti-Revolutionaries sat on the Right. Terms from the internal geography of the French parliament as the ancient regime crumbled are striking inapposite today.

Likewise, the terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo. Considering that modern "liberals" are seeking a return to 20^th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.

If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.

And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.

Although one can trace socialist ideas back to the French Revolution (and even before), socialism's true naissance is the 19^th Century, when various utopian dreamers envisioned a class-free society in which everyone shared equally in what the socialist utopians firmly believed was a finite economic pie. That is, they did not conceive of the possibility of economic growth. Instead, they believed that, forever and ever, there would only be so many riches and resources to go around.

The original utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality. Instead, they relied on each enlightened individual's moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end. All of them failed. (For many of us, the most famous would be the Transcendentalist experiment in Concord, Massachusetts, which almost saw poor Louisa May Alcott starve to death as a child.)

It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas. Herewith some examples:

My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.

Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state. Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

We all know what life was like in this Nazi socialist state. Citizens immediately lost the right to bear arms; thought crimes were punished with imprisonment and death; children were indoctrinated into giving their allegiance to the state, not the family; the government dictated the way in which people could live their day-to-day lives; and people who appeared to be outliers to the harmony of the conscienceless government entity (gays, mentally ill-people, physically handicapped people, Jews, gypsies) were dehumanized and eventually slaughtered.

And here's something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state. While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn't. They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.

Here's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In my liberal days in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very popular to downplay what was going on in the USSR and, instead, chalk up fear of the Soviets to the foul remnants of McCarthyism. This was extreme intellectual dishonesty on our part. The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible.

From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin. Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

I've got another example for you: the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.

British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.

By Bookworm

Bookwormroom.WORDPRESS.com

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro

is a usurper

because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain
and his mother was too young to pass on her citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his removal
or
by an amendment to the Constitution.