Making her list: and checking it twice!

'As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs—we knew that," President Obama said at his press conference Friday in response to a question about rising health spending.

Well, that wasn't his pitch when he was twisting arms to get ObamaCare passed. But hey, we are used to politicians "twisting" the truth.

But now, [w]itness Kathleen Sebelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group—a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

Zero tolerence? Like in "I will punish you"? What does that mean?

What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. ObamaCare includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents' plans until age 26 and "free" preventative care (i.e., no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers). The tone of Ms. Sebelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.

These are Gestapo tactics. This is the "Chicago Way". Who will they use the Chicago Way against next? Look how easily the First Amendment is shredded!

Read it all here.

Muslims have right to build Mosque....Christians can't build church

No one less than the President of the United States has waded full depth into the controversy to support Muslims who want to build a new Mosque at Ground Zero. The place where radical muslims killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

After all the President said "our Founders wanted there to be Freedom of Religion" and we have to preserve that in this case.

Okay, but what about the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which was destroyed when the twin towers fell Apparantly this Christian church does not have the same rights? The Port Authority which has tripped all over itself to approve of the Mosque and ended talks with the Greek Orthodox Church......no rebuild!!

Really? Read it all here.

We will wait to see what the President says about the rights of this Church, which existed at this site prior to the radical Muslim murder of 3,000 Americans.

Prayers are disorderly conduct!

The man on the left praying was arrested in Chicago for disorderly conduct. Read it all here.

Chicago has an inane "bubble law" which says a protester cannot enter someone else's bubble!

The yellow shirted Planned Parenthood person entered the praying man's bubble but he got arrested!

Watch the video here.

Notice the disorder the man provokes!!!!!

Warning!!!! Prayer outside Supreme Court is Illegal!!!!

You can't make this up: read it all here.

A group of Christian students was ordered to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on May 5 because a court police officer told them it was against the law.

The students were part of a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona. After taking pictures on the steps of the Supreme Court building, their teacher gathered them to a side location where they formed a circle and began to pray.

According to Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a police officer “abruptly” interrupted the prayer and ordered the group to cease and desist.

“They were told to stop praying because they were violating the law and they had to take their prayer elsewhere,” Kellum told FOX News Radio.

A spokesperson for the Court said the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the ADF.
“The Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer,” said public information officer Kathy Arberg in an email to FOX News Radio.

So the group of 15 students and seven adults left the Supreme Court and relocated to a sidewalk – where Rigo said the children stood in a gutter – and continued their prayer.

National Day of Prayer: Unconstitutional!

As reported here, The National Day of Prayer, honored in the United States for more than a half-century, is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled.

In a 66-page opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said the holiday violates the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, which creates a separation of church and state.

NO IT DOES NOT! This is one of the most blatant lies of the Progressive Left and it is a shame that every Constitution-supporting American does not shout them down for trying to thrust this upon us.

Here is what the First Amendment says about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof.....

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution...nowhere! The phrase comes from much later private communication between Thomas Jefferson and a baptist pastor who sought clarification of what the Constitution meant on the subject. In 1947, the Supreme Court institutionalized the phrase in a horrible opinion rendered in the Everson case.

The judge is wrong, the Constitution does not say what she says it says. Someone please send her a copy of the Constitution so she can look it up!

Want to get arrested? Talk about God in California

See that nice mall? Seems like a welcoming place. Ah, but don't talk about God in there. In 2006 Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor, initiated a conversation about God with three shoppers at the Roseville Galleria mall.

The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store employee said they "looked nervous," so he ordered the evangelist to leave. After Snatchko refused, mall security arrested him.

Snatchko was later released and never charged with a crime, but he and the Justice Institute decided to challenge the constitutionality of Roseville Galleria's restrictions on conversations about topics such as religion and politics.

"He wanted to make sure that neither he nor anybody else got harassed again at this mall or the 55 other malls this company owns throughout the United States," said McReynolds, part of the Pacific Justice Institute.

In 2008, a California superior court ruled that the mall's ban on controversial conversations with strangers didn’t violate freedom of speech. But late last month Snatchko and the Justice Institute appealed to the state’s 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento. All parties in the case are now waiting for the court to schedule a date for oral arguments or issue a ruling.

Now, if this fellow had been abusive or had been cornering people to force them to listen to him, the Mall would seem to have a case. I bet if Planned Parenthood showed up to talk about "choice" they would be welcomed with open arms.

If need be, I hope this one goes to the Supreme Court. Read the rest here.

Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks

Supposedly the NSA (National Security Agency) and Google are going to team up so that NSA can help Google figure out how to fend off cyber attacks from China according to this Washington Post story.

Given the rising concern over what is termed Cyber Warfare, there is likely a national defense angle to this type of cooperation. But one just has to wonder what such a partnership could lead to if the government had an interest in taking it deeper. Not too unlike many of the concerns people had about the Patriot Act under George Bush.

The Right to Bear Arms

In a campaign comment last year, candidate Barack Obama, lamented his limited ability to win over working class voters claiming they are inwardly bitter about declining circumstances and cling to their guns and bibles. It was one of many disparaging comments aimed at white American citizens.

In Obama's utopian worldview of America, certainly the guns would not exist and it seems most if not all of the Bibles would disappear also.

Fortunately for Americans, the First Ammendment to the Constitution still protects our rights to worship despite ruinous Supreme Court decisions to water down that Ammendment.

And the Second Ammendment protects our rights to bear arms to defend ourselves, again, despite the efforts of anti-constitutionalists to remove that right.

But remember: rights not exercised and defended are rights lost.

Christmas Cheer and the ACLU

Just as familiar as stores bursting with goods, stories of Rudolph and Santa on TV, are the stories about the ACLU threatening local governments, schools, and other organizations for showing Nativity scenes or other familiar scenes of the Advent and Christmas Seasons.

This present story is just as good as any to illustrate the fallacious nature of the ACLU's actions as well as those of the Supreme Court in repressing religious expression in our country, a Christian country by the way.

The story explains that the ACLU is taking action because of the separation of church and state clause of the Constitution. Here is a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America. Read it and you will find NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CLAUSE!

That is because it does not exist. There is no such clause in the Constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state was contained in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a baptist minister (1801) who had asked him whether the federal government might intrude on worship in his church. He in effect told the minister that he and his church had nothing to fear in that there was a wall of separation between government and church to protect the churches.

And here is where the issue lay, until 1947 when the Supreme Court erroneously (but purposefully) federalized this phrase by invoking it in a decision on Constitutional law in the case of Everson v Board of Education 1947. This decision launched the totally false notion that the Constitution and the Founders of this country were anti-Christian and anti-Religion.

In fact, the establishment clause accurately says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is, Congress cannot establish a national church nor can it prohibit worship of any kind (subject to harm to people or the country). THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

The ACLU and the Supreme Court have in effect, to our eternal detriment" made a mockery of what the Founders of this country intended.