I have no doubt that at first he would try to do this thought the court system. But what will he do once this strategy fails to get Catholics, aside from liberal loony ones like Nancy Pelosi, to yield? Will he have the foolish courage to start shooting nuns and priests in the streets?

Let us hope to never have to find out. Let us hope for change at the White House come next year. Let us hope that which ever GOP liberal gets elected in November he has the political courage, with the help of Congress, to change course quickly.

What chutzpah! What Would Obama Do? Nothing different than any other liberal desperate to justify themselves apparently; do as he says not as he does.

The facts are however that Rick Santorum does indeed have a clear track record of big government, unconstitutional spending. But so does Ron Paul!

This man called Paul is a hypocrite of the highest order and the problem with that is that he doesn’t even know it. He has spent the years since his high spending ways on unconstitutional things came to light spinning himself into dizziness trying to distance himself from his own actions. Unsuccessfully I might add. Except in the eyes of his blind supporters of course.

Hey, you can’t fix stupid as the saying goes.

Rasmussen reports:

Eighty-one percent (81%) of those who celebrate the holiday believe that Christ is the Son of God and 70% view the day primarily as a religious holiday. Eighty-three percent (83%) also think that Jesus Christ actually walked the Earth 2000 years ago and 73% believe Jesus Christ was born to the Virgin Mary.

Meanwhile, there are those who still get offended by the majority of Americans believing in God and his Son. But with over 80% of Americans still holding solidly to the Christian faith, America will have to decided if they are going to be ruled by those that are offended by freedom of religious practices or by the rule of law.

This week since receiving that article more times than I can count, I have actually changed my focus a little bit. Now I have been putting a lot of thought into how liberalism is an ideology that invariably trips over its own feet and falls face first into the mud. Let’s explore why this is happening yet again shall we?

Liberals are frantically trying to convince Americans that there should be some further regulation and control by the federal government when it comes to the health care system in this country. As though Medicare and Medicaid, with doctors fleeing those programs left and right and refusing to see patients under them, is a good referral for such an idea right? Their arguments for this greater expansion of their power has gone through many contortions and they have desperately avoided the Constitutional arguments against the plan like Jack the Ripper eluded London authorities while on his murder spree. For months they have been looking for one such argument that would stick. My readers often hear me refer to this shot gun type approach as, “cooking spaghetti,” where they are throwing noodles of ideas desperately at the wall finding the one that will stick, tell them they are done and have their final answer.

That final answer, it seems, is that health care and health insurance are rights. And not just any sort of right either mind you. As Tom Harken (D-IA) will gladly tell you if you ask him, they are inalienable rights. You know, God given rights?

Now, this is certainly funny considering that ideological liberals have spent years fighting tooth and nail to keep any sort of religiosity out of government and the public square. That they would now be evoking God from the very halls of Congress should not escape anyone as being hypocritical. What happened to their often cited, and readily proven fallacious claim, of a secular government that could never admit to the existence of God under the concept of the separation of Church and State even though our founding documents are ripe with an embrace of God?

Apparently God is a-ok now! Well, now that they can use Him for their own ends. The left has apparently found a place for religion in government after all and now they trip themselves up falling face first right into the mud.

Now this brings us back to the example of the Amish and the religious conscious exemption. See, the Amish are a pretty devote Christian sect. One would think that if health insurance is an inalienable right that they would not want to defy God himself and He who granted them this right and deny the benefits of such a grand plan as is before our elected representatives right now to vote on. But yet here we are with the unmistakable fact that Congress is willing to allow the Amish, or at least certain sects of the Amish, to forgo this inalienable and God given right. And the Amish will probably be more than happy to accept. Huh?

In order to understand this logic from the authors of these bills and the liberals clamoring to sign on to them you are going to need to turn off your brain it seems. If the Amish are allowed to opt out of their God given right to health care, and God given rights are for all of mankind, then does that mean that the Amish are in reality sub-human pagans? If they do not want their God given rights they must not really believe in God and further if such rights are the birthright of all human beings then they must not be human either. Again, since inalienable rights are granted by default to all mankind this is the only way that the Amish would be able to not have them.

This certainly would come as a shock to me and undoubtedly millions of other people with actual brains in their heads. But that is what we are left to believe based on a preponderance of the evidence liberals are putting before us and their claims to government health care and insurance being a “right.”

This is not the first time that groups like the Amish, some sects of which frown on the concept of insurance, have been excluded from government programs. They are also exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes too and again for religious reasons.

Wow. Uh, not to give anyone ideas, but maybe it is time that vast numbers of Americans start changing their religion to Amish. Now I know that the Amish lifestyle, especially those of strict, older sects, is not that appealing to many. But hey, just declare the switch, get your exemptions and then when anyone wonders why you don’t seem to be living a very Amish lifestyle just say you are non-practicing; but that you are still Amish. Who is the government to deny you your freedom of religion after all?

Yeah, somehow I suspect if this were to happen then there would be a special government commission set up to send federal agents out to every Amish home to determine whether you were Amish enough to qualify to be exempt from the hand of government fate! Government hates it when you use their own rules against them and in doing so keep your hard earned money and personal liberty out of their grubby little hands.

But still it would be a fascinating experiment. I say, “Yes We Can! … all be Amish!”

Oh well, there just isn’t any helping some people.

MSNBC asked visitors what they think about the phrase and if it should be removed from our currency offering the following choices:
“Yes. It’s a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.”
“No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.”

As I write this with 15,878,939 votes cast 88% of Americans are smart enough to have answered, “No.”

The problem for people that want to basically adopt atheism and remove reference to God from America by our government is that they also want to establish a religion. Yes, atheism is a religion and forcing government to be silent on the topic of God would itself be a violation of the the first amendment. Mentioning God however does not establish a religion as, like I said, God is ambiguous since many religions believe in Him.

Looks like the Atheists will just have to get over it – again.

The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of an offended parent, is suing an elementary school district for allowing its students to attend a non-taxpayer-funded religious education program that meets on campus.

For the past 55 years, the Huntington County Community School Corporation of rural Indiana has permitted students in its eight elementary schools to attend religious study groups through a “released time” program.

The program, coordinated by an area church association, enables students with parental permission to be released from classes one hour during the school day to receive religious instruction that cannot be otherwise offered by the public school.

And while a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court ruling permits “released time” religious instruction, the ACLU is alleging that since Huntington County’s programs are housed in trailers on school property, they violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

In championing the First Amendment – which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – the ACLU frequently cites the “wall of separation between church and state,” a phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson to protect churches, but now often interpreted to encompass any interaction between faith and public schools.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization defending religious liberty, however, disagrees with the ACLU and its interpretation of Jefferson’s famous phrase.

“The only wall that separates religious groups from conducting programs on public school campuses is the ACLU’s wall, not Thomas Jefferson’s,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman in a statement announcing a friend-of-the-court brief filed by his organization. “The program is perfectly constitutional.”

I like to ask this question because it drives nuts like this one lone parent who thinks the world revolves around them. That question is, if one person complaining is enough to get the program banned, how many parents complaining is enough to get it reinstated? One? Two? Fifty? A hundred?

The answer is no number of parents complaining in the reverse is enough because in the ACLU’s mind any such person that would desire the ability to worship God, especially on public property, must be mentally ill, a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a homophobe or whatever have you.

Earth to ACLU, it is very Stalinist of you to misrepresent Jefferson’s comments on Church and State and apply them in ways that not even he dared to. But then again, you folks are a bunch of liberals and the spreading of the Big Lie is the way you get things done right?