Does the Declaration of Independence Still Matter?

       It matters and that's why 

on July 3, 2012 the Cure' of Ars Religious Liberty Group  observed the true Meaning of the 4th of July with patriotic readings and prayer, at the beautiful Garden of Mercy (Cure' of Ars Church), recognizing  America's exceptionalism in her struggle for Independence and the wisdom of Great men to conceptualize it in a document that would stand the test of time.  These timeless truths come to us from our Creator and they inspired a Declaration of Independence that included them as self evident.  

 But the time has come when men of no honor, promote deceit to gain popularity and erode God-given rights to replace with government edicts.  So we are called at this moment in time to live up to similar challenges our forefathers faced, with the prospect of  losses as well.  But we, like our forefathers will not allow fear to dissuade us or weaken our resolve to reestablish for future generations what was so generously passed on to us by the sacrifices of so many.  Many men of Honor, We Thank You for your Courage, for your Selflessness and Pray that we will act in your honor to preserve our great nation, its Constitution and the Promise of Freedom.
   

HHS’s Bishop Bash

Last Updated: 11:49 PM, July 7, 2012

Posted: July 08, 2012

Share on email Share on facebook More Sharing ServicesMore Print

Everyone knows President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services is in hot holy water with the Catholic bishops — for trying to force them to conform church beliefs to the administration’s.
But more is at issue than the HHS contraception mandate in ObamaCare, even now that the Supreme Court has upheld that law.
Last fall, HHS pulled the plug on a program run by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of sex trafficking. Since 2006 — when President George W. Bush’s HHS awarded a five-year, $19 million-plus grant for the project — the bishops had satisfactorily provided housing, counseling and other services to help trafficking victims put their lives back together.

Getty Images for Young Elected O

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

There was just one condition: The bishops, following Catholic doctrine, wouldn’t help clients get contraceptives or abortions.
That obviously violated a sacred teaching in the Church of Obama. So when the time came for HHS to decide whether to continue funding the bishops’ work, the feds took off points for their refusal to promote abortions.
And yet, even with this deduction, as The Washington Post reported, HHS’s own review process still scored the bishops’ funding application much higher than two of their competitors’.
All’s well that ends well, right?
Wrong.
Despite the fact that the two other groups were — by any objective measure — far less qualified than the bishops to administer the trafficking-victims program, political officials at HHS gave those groups the money. Of the four organizations that sought grants, only the Catholic bishops were denied — for standing on principle.
To add insult to injury, the USCCB is now refighting this battle in court.
In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union sued over the trafficking-victims program — arguing that because the government’s exemption for abortions accommodated a religious principle, it violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Last March, a federal judge in Massachusetts agreed — ruling against the bishops and saying that, under the Constitution, HHS had to nix their application.
But here’s the rub: Because the original ACLU lawsuit actually targeted HHS for agreeing to the bishops’ restrictions, the Obama administration and the USCCB are technically on the same side in the legal fight against the Anti-Christian Loonies Union. And guess what: In May, the administration filed notice that it would appeal the Massachusetts court’s ruling.
The question now is, what will that appeal look like? Will the Obama legal team pull a bait-and-switch and refuse to fight for real, as it did with the Defense of Marriage Act?
Or will it mount a good-faith defense of religious liberty?
Catholic teaching holds that no transgressor is beyond hope of redemption. After Team O’s one-two punch — hitting the bishops’ program and then imposing the contraception mandate — let’s see if Obama & Co. will prove that teaching right.
Standing up for the bishops in court would be a good place to start.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hhs_bishop_bash_qekOTe1sIBHBTeTs7mjaZM#ixzz20925FgnA

Ingraham"s advice to Romney

and I Agree!

Ingraham To Romney: "Get Out There On The Trail And Get Off The Jet Ski"

Related Videos | expand

"It seems to me that the way the [Romney] campaign advisers are speaking to the press, they want to quickly move off of ObamaCare to just a general take on the economy and jobs. And that is where they think their gold is. That is what they think is the strong points for Romney is and where his strengths lie," radio host and television commentator Laura Ingraham said about Mitt Romney today on her nationally syndicated program The Laura Ingraham Show.

"For me, I think he needs to be out there, [at a] patriotic venue," Ingraham suggested. "Why not? Not that I don't like Lake Winnipesaukee, it's gorgeous, it's beautiful and you have every right to celebrate your family and I think they're wonderful people. That's fine."

"I don't even think this is his fault," Ingraham opined. "This is his advisers. This is not Romney, this is the advisers telling him, 'Oh, it's fine. Take a week.' There's no week to spare, we have a country to save."

"Should Romney call the ceasefire or get out there on the trail and get off the jet ski?" Ingraham asked at the end of the segment.

Posted By Ian Schwartz Send To A Friend 169 Comm

Krauthammer On Romney & ObamaCare: To Be Consistent And Logical A "Mistake"

Related Videos | expand

"I think this attempt, as you just heard, to be consistent and logical on the issue is a mistake," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about senior Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom not believing the individual mandate is a tax. "Even Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion, is totally twisted in trying to decide if it's a tax or a penalty. In fact, at one point in the decision he says that for the purposes of the Constitution it's a tax, but for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, an arcane reason why the suit would be invalid in the first place, it is not a tax, it's a penalty."

"So even he didn't have it straight. So don't worry about getting into a twist over this and forget about consistency. Use whichever end of the argument you need at the time, it's exactly what Democrats are doing," Krauthammer said on the panel segment of FOX News' "Special Report."

"What Romney ought to say is, 'Okay it's a tax and it's like many of the other taxes heaped on to you by ObamaCare.' The augmentation of the capital gains tax, the tax on medical devices so every time you need a stent you're actually indirectly paying a tax on this. And say this is just one of many things that you have to do to sustain a system, a law, that the CBO says will cost $1.76 trillion," Krauthammer said on Monday night's broadcast.

"The money is not coming out of heaven like manna, you're going to have to tax people for that. This is one of the many taxes. Stick with that, run with that and then use other arguments in other places. But trying to square a circle that even Roberts isn't going able to, I think is a mistake," Krauthammer concluded.

 Mark Levin on Roberts

 

 Mark Levin: Time For Term Limits On Supreme Court

"I think it turns out he’s extremely political -- to my great chagrin. I think he reads the media. I think the libs know that and the libs, like the mob, will be in for the next decision. This is just the first. They're going to want more from him," nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin told Neil Cavuto on Monday's broadcast of his FOX News show.

"This is why I argued six or seven years ago in 'Men in Black' and I am going to reintroduce this argument: Term limits for justices. If justices want to be political then they shouldn’t serve for life because the American people deserve better than this. And that's the bottom line. Whatever Roberts thinks -- whatever we call this, a tax, a punishment, [or] a cucumber," Levin said.

"The fact of the matter is we, the American people, deserve public officials, whether they’re elected or appointed to serve for life or for limited terms, who are go to uphold our institutions. And if not going to do it, there’s 312 million Americans. We'll find someone who can," Levin also said.

 Does Obama know the meaning of TRUTH?

 

 Obama must have been running his mouth when the rest of the class learned the merits of HONESTY.  I don't think he's read the definition in Webster's Dictionary or maybe he has and decided it's not HIS definition. Just like he shut down Stephanopolous for reading him the dictionary meaning of tax.  Obama says its stretching it to look up the actual meaning of words.  I guess Robert's was stretching it when he found an out to uphold Obamacare.  We're living in the world of Obama logic.  We had Obama Mania now we have Obama Logic.      

 

 

'Washington Post' Backs Off Claim Romney Outsourced Jobs

 

 

 

---

Email Article

Print Article Send a Tip

by John Nolte 2 Jul 2012, 7:30 AM PDT 21 post a comment

After being caught for the third time in as many months coordinating with the Obama campaign to attack Mitt Romney, the Washington Post finally -- in the most cowardly and slippery manner imaginable -- came clean today regarding the provably false charge that the presumptive GOP nominee outsourced American jobs during his tenure at Bain Capital:

The actual [Washington Post article in question] article, in fact, does not say that transfers of U.S. jobs took place while Romney ran the private equity firm of Bain Capital. …

The Obama campaign moved quickly to define what the article said, claiming that this transfer of jobs took place while Romney ran Bain. That’s not what the original article said.

This is how dishonest media cowards who wake up in the morning with David Axelrod nuzzling their ear correct maliciously-timed, journalistic hit jobs that can no longer withstand scrutiny.

What the Post's "fact checker," Glenn Kessler, is doing here is two-fold:

First, Kessler's attempting to rewrite and loophole the Post's butt out of a sling. Now that it's been proven Romney is only responsible for creating American jobs and not outsourcing them, Kessler wants us to believe the Post's front-page hit-piece never (who us?) claimed Romney was responsible for outsourcing.

Are you going to believe Kessler, or your lying eyes? The Post's own headline:

Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas

And I cannot be more clear in stating, once again, that this front page feature piece with a headline that is nothing more than a lie, ran the day after the Obama campaign launched its dishonest outsourcing attack. If you don't think this was coordinated, you don’t think at all.

Kessler can rationalize and parse and shimmy-shammy like some hustler trying to convince us the stereo in his trunk isn't stolen, but the intent of the Post hit is all that matters, and the intent was to jump on and aid and abet Obama's new attack strategy for maximum damage. This is how the Post and the Obama campaign team up to create false narratives and to help President FailureTeleprompter do the most important work he can before Labor Day, and that's define Mitt Romney.  

Something even the slippery Kessler cannot parse, though, is that the Post's article references two companies responsible for outsourcing that Bain didn't acquire until after Romney left the venture capital firm!

And where's Kessler's explanation for why the Post cited no outsourcing numbers to substantiate its lying headline? Why doesn't Kessler explain to us why the Post either didn’t bother to contact or bother to quote the CEOs of the companies in question, who would've told them in no uncertain terms that no outsourcing occurred under Romney's tenure at Bain (just answered my own question, didn't I?). Why does Kessler ignore the fact that the Post lied through the art of omission by not reporting the fact that SEC filings prove no American call centers were moved overseas but that these overseas call centers already existed when Bain acquired the companies in question? Furthermore, the numbers of AMERICAN jobs at call centers INCREASED under Romney's tenure.

Instead of answering these inconvenient questions, what does the oh-so-respected and Orwellian-named Washington Post fact checker do? Well, that's the second thing…

Kessler shamelessly signals to the Obama campaign that it can continue lying about Romney's record by citing the Post's dishonest reporting….

The Obama campaign moved quickly to define what the article said, claiming that this transfer of jobs took place while Romney ran Bain. That’s not what the original article said. …

Given that this debate involves an interpretation of a Post article, we are not going to award any Pinocchios.

That's right, even though FactCheck.org has declared the new Obama ads dishonest, and Kessler even says the ads are dishonest….

One of [the Obama campaign's] outsourcing ads before the article ran, in fact, earned Four Pinocchios. These new ads would not fare much better; there is little in the Post article that backs up the Obama campaign’s spin

…Kessler refuses to award Pinnocchios.

Which means that under the imprimatur of the Washington Post, the Obama campaign is free to continue lying about Romney being an outsourcer-in-chief -- which further means that the conspiracy hatched between the Post and the Obama campaign to flat-out lie about Romney is free to continue unabated.

TEN DAYS LATER, after its story completely falls apart under the pressing weight of what you and I call facts, in so many Clintonesque words, the corrupt Post finally admits Romney is not responsible for outsourcing... but only does so by burying that fact in a piece published long after Team Obama has been allowed to use the Post's dishonest reporting to lie about Romney in a massive ad campaign.

And as far as the Post is concerned, it is okey-doke by them if the Obama campaign continues to lie, using them as cover.

It's as if Politico and the Washington Post entered a contest to see which failing news outlet could disgrace themselves more before the year was out.