And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Laugh...laugh...laugh...


Crazy *******s.


TMT


Party of Nuts: Poll Shows GOP Thinks Obama is Muslim, Socialist
March 24, 2010 03:44 PM ET | Robert Schlesinger
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog


Almost one in four Republicans suspect that Barack Obama is the
Antichrist. That's one of the most astounding findings from a notably
stunning new online poll from Harris Interactive. Majorities of
Republicans also believe that Obama is a socialist (67 percent), that
he wants to take away Americans' guns (61 percent), is a Muslim (57
percent), has done "many" things that are not constitutional (55
percent), and wants to turn the country over to a one world
government
(51 percent).


It's clear that the right wing is the anchor that's pulling the
country toward loonyville in this data set. Forty-five percent of
Republicans are birthers (they think that Obama is not a natural born
American citizen), according to the survey (as opposed to 25 percent
of all Americans); 45 percent think that he's a "domestic enemy"; and
41 percent think that he's itching to "use an economic collapse or
terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers" (a mere 23
percent generally so believe). If you think that sounds suspiciously
like something Hitler might do, you're not alone: 38 percent of
Republicans think Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler
did" (20 percent of Americans overall think so).


Twenty-two percent of Republicans think "he wants the terrorists to
win," as opposed to 13 percent of Americans generally. And as I
mentioned at the top, 24 percent of Republicans believe that "he may
be the Antichrist" (there's even a youtube video on the topic), a
belief held by 14 percent of Americans total.


Step back a moment and ponder that figure. Fourteen percent of
Americans think not that the president has bad ideas, or is a bad
person, but that he is a supernatural personification of evil who
will
do battle with Jesus Christ in the final days. Wow.


It will come as no surprise that there is an inverse relationship
between education and nutty beliefs about the president. Forty-five
percent of those without a high school education, for example,
believe
that Obama is a socialist, while only 20 percent of those with
postgraduate education so believe.


And while there is a fairly close affinity between what conservatives
believe and what Republicans believe, and what liberals believe and
what Democrats believe (they are, not surprisingly, the most
sympathetic to the president), Independents tend to believe more ill
of the president than do moderates. So, for example, 30 percent of
moderates call Obama a socialist, whereas 42 percent of Independents
do. One possible explanation: self-described Independents include a
large dose of conservatives still disaffected with the GOP.

WorldNetDaily - Flood of Legal Challenges Rising Against 'Obamacare'
March 23, 2010
By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Congress will be accused in a coming flood of lawsuits of trashing the
Constitution through President Obama's plan to nationalize health care,
according to several groups that already have cases in the works.

The question will be reduced to whether the federal government has the
authority to demand that Americans pay for a government-specified health
insurance - and it likely will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The individual mandate . is going to be the focus of a lot of litigation,"
Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice told WND today, less
than 24 hours after Congress endorsed a plan that would have the federal
government take over one-sixth of the country's economy.

"There's the issue of whether Congress even has the authority to require
people to participate in something like this, to buy something they don't
want to buy," he said.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, agreed, telling
WND among the primary questions that need to be resolved is whether the
government can mandate citizens to purchase or obtain health insurance by
federal fiat.

"It is a dangerous precedent," he said.

Such thinking logically could be expected to affect other decisions: If the
government opposes a product on any grounds, can it be forbidden? Or
conversely, if the government likes a product, can it be required?

The ACLJ and Thomas More Law Center are among the activist organizations
preparing legal action to challenge "Obamacare."

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund also were on top of a related
situation, moving forward in four different lawsuits to ensure that
conscience protections - the right to decide a procedure is objectionable
and to not perform it - is maintained for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and
others.

And according to Liberty Counsel, "The threat to liberty posed by the
health-care bill goes beyond health care. If Congress can get away with this
expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will
vanish.

"This political power grab will push the country to financial ruin. The bill
funds abortion, destroys liberty, and is patently unconstitutional," the
group said.

WND reported over the weekend when Democrats in the U.S. House, who needed
216 votes to pass a Senate version of Obama's plans, tallied 219.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., boasted, "We're doing something that ranks with
what we did with Social Security or Medicare. This is a day of which we can
all be proud."

The approval came after Obama issued an executive order essentially banning
the use of federal funds for abortions, even though analysts have confirmed
that Sunday's decision effectually will be reversed when Obama signs the
program into law.

Obama's order was issued in exchange for the support of several Democrats in
the House who opposed federal tax funding for abortions.

Promoters of the bill have long touted the millions who will be added to
health-care rolls and claimed that long-term, the trillion-dollar bill will
eventually lead to deficit reduction.

Critics say that the bill's supporters have used accounting tricks to keep
hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses out of the fine print. They cite
several strikes against the reform attempt, from the cost of yet another
taxpayer-funded entitlement to the general principle that nowhere in the
U.S. Constitution - which sets limits on the federal government's powers -
is there an authorization to force people to buy the health-insurance
program a federal bureaucrat picks out.

Ralk radio icon Rush Limbaugh today suggested American elections now are
being threatened by Obama and warned that since the president's health-care
takeover was approved by Congress, a mass amnesty for illegal aliens cannot
be far behind.

"The next big push will be amnesty for ... millions of illegal immigrants
who are here," he said on his radio program.

"Obama's gonna need their votes in 2012. The Democrats are going to need
their votes in every election from now on - if we have elections, and I'm
not joking.

"The Constitution has just been ripped to shreds, so why is anything safe?"

Sekulow and Thompson told WND there are a lot of issues on which "Obamacare"
could be challenged constitutionally. The issue of the federal government
exceeding its authority probably will be the strongest challenge.

Further, there are states' rights questions and concerns that some of the
special provisions in the bill should be perceived as unequal treatment
under the law.

Sekulow said the cases will come up all over the country, but the U.S.
Supreme Court eventually will have to rule on the plan by Congress.

"This is going to be national litigation in multiple jurisdictions and
ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States [will rule]," he said.
"We've got to be realistic here. At the end of the day this is going to be a
complete change in the way we govern and Congress has authority to govern.

"This is way beyond health care at this point," he said.

"We're preparing legal action to challenge this measure and we intend to
file a lawsuit in federal court soon challenging a law that is not only
wrong for America - but a law with a forced mandate that penalizes Americans
who choose not to participate," Sekulow said. "This is unconstitutional and
we believe ultimately will be overturned by the courts."

The organization already has heard from nearly 500,000 Americans who oppose
the government plan.

Thompson said the focus is simple: the U.S. Constitution.

"Basically you have a government, a Congress, acting beyond its enumerated
powers. It goes back to the founding documents," Thompson said. The founders
has a vision that powers "not enumerated [in the Constitution], belong to
the states or the people."

That obviously includes the decision on what - or whether - to buy health
insurance, he argues.

Such requirements are an issue because they restrict liberty, he said.

"Once the government starts doing that, liberty is jeopardized," he said.

Another major issue that likely will be raised is mandatory funding for
abortion, which could be determined to violate the fundamental rights of
conscience and free exercise of religion.

Liberty Counsel said Congress lacks the authority to mandate insurance
coverage for individuals or private businesses. It said Liberty University,
the largest and fastest-growing Christian university in the world with more
than 50,000 students, will be a plaintiff in its action.

In forecasting eventual arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawyers
could be anticipating some awkward moments for the White House in its effort
to abandon generations of practice in the U.S. regarding health care. Obama,
during his State of the Union address this year, attacked the court for
changing decades of precedent that allowed campaign spending by some and not
by others.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court
reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -
including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections,"
Obama said in front of the justices who attended the January speech.

Justice Samuel Alito was seen mouthing "not true" in response to the
president, because the ruling contained exclusions for foreign entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts later said such an attack at "a political pep
rally" was "very troubling."

The issue, however, could disappear more quickly than the years estimated
for resolution in the courts.

Already, members of both the House and the Senate have prepared legislation
to repeal the health-care plan, and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he will be
part of that effort.

"When a president and a Congress collude to violate the Constitution and
ignore the American people, everything our nation stands for is at risk,"
DeMint said. "It's not too late to undo the damage. I, and other
Republicans, will work to repeal this monstrosity, and give Americans
freedom to make their own health care choices."

On Mar 24, 5:38*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
WorldNetDaily - Flood of Legal Challenges Rising Against 'Obamacare'
March 23, 2010
By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Congress will be accused in a coming flood of lawsuits of trashing the
Constitution through President Obama's plan to nationalize health care,
according to several groups that already have cases in the works.

The question will be reduced to whether the federal government has the
authority to demand that Americans pay for a government-specified health
insurance - and it likely will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The individual mandate . is going to be the focus of a lot of litigation,"
Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice told WND today, less
than 24 hours after Congress endorsed a plan that would have the federal
government take over one-sixth of the country's economy.

"There's the issue of whether Congress even has the authority to require
people to participate in something like this, to buy something they don't
want to buy," he said.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, agreed, telling
WND among the primary questions that need to be resolved is whether the
government can mandate citizens to purchase or obtain health insurance by
federal fiat.

"It is a dangerous precedent," he said.

Such thinking logically could be expected to affect other decisions: If the
government opposes a product on any grounds, can it be forbidden? Or
conversely, if the government likes a product, can it be required?

The ACLJ and Thomas More Law Center are among the activist organizations
preparing legal action to challenge "Obamacare."

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund also were on top of a related
situation, moving forward in four different lawsuits to ensure that
conscience protections - the right to decide a procedure is objectionable
and to not perform it - is maintained for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and
others.

And according to Liberty Counsel, "The threat to liberty posed by the
health-care bill goes beyond health care. If Congress can get away with this
expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will
vanish.

"This political power grab will push the country to financial ruin. The bill
funds abortion, destroys liberty, and is patently unconstitutional," the
group said.

WND reported over the weekend when Democrats in the U.S. House, who needed
216 votes to pass a Senate version of Obama's plans, tallied 219.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., boasted, "We're doing something that ranks with
what we did with Social Security or Medicare. This is a day of which we can
all be proud."

The approval came after Obama issued an executive order essentially banning
the use of federal funds for abortions, even though analysts have confirmed
that Sunday's decision effectually will be reversed when Obama signs the
program into law.

Obama's order was issued in exchange for the support of several Democrats in
the House who opposed federal tax funding for abortions.

Promoters of the bill have long touted the millions who will be added to
health-care rolls and claimed that long-term, the trillion-dollar bill will
eventually lead to deficit reduction.

Critics say that the bill's supporters have used accounting tricks to keep
hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses out of the fine print. They cite
several strikes against the reform attempt, from the cost of yet another
taxpayer-funded entitlement to the general principle that nowhere in the
U.S. Constitution - which sets limits on the federal government's powers -
is there an authorization to force people to buy the health-insurance
program a federal bureaucrat picks out.

Ralk radio icon Rush Limbaugh today suggested American elections now are
being threatened by Obama and warned that since the president's health-care
takeover was approved by Congress, a mass amnesty for illegal aliens cannot
be far behind.

"The next big push will be amnesty for ... millions of illegal immigrants
who are here," he said on his radio program.

"Obama's gonna need their votes in 2012. The Democrats are going to need
their votes in every election from now on - if we have elections, and I'm
not joking.

"The Constitution has just been ripped to shreds, so why is anything safe?"

Sekulow and Thompson told WND there are a lot of issues on which "Obamacare"
could be challenged constitutionally. The issue of the federal government
exceeding its authority probably will be the strongest challenge.

Further, there are states' rights questions and concerns that some of the
special provisions in the bill should be perceived as unequal treatment
under the law.

Sekulow said the cases will come up all over the country, but the U.S.
Supreme Court eventually will have to rule on the plan by Congress.

"This is going to be national litigation in multiple jurisdictions and
ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States [will rule]," he said.
"We've got to be realistic here. At the end of the day this is going to be a
complete change in the way we govern and Congress has authority to govern..

"This is way beyond health care at this point," he said.

"We're preparing legal action to challenge this measure and we intend to
file a lawsuit in federal court soon challenging a law that is not only
wrong for America - but a law with a forced mandate that penalizes Americans
who choose not to participate," Sekulow said. "This is unconstitutional and
we believe ultimately will be overturned by the courts."

The organization already has heard from nearly 500,000 Americans who oppose
the government plan.

Thompson said the focus is simple: the U.S. Constitution.

"Basically you have a government, a Congress, acting beyond its enumerated
powers. It goes back to the founding documents," Thompson said. The founders
has a vision that powers "not enumerated [in the Constitution], belong to
the states or the people."

That obviously includes the decision on what - or whether - to buy health
insurance, he argues.

Such requirements are an issue because they restrict liberty, he said.

"Once the government starts doing that, liberty is jeopardized," he said.

Another major issue that likely will be raised is mandatory funding for
abortion, which could be determined to violate the fundamental rights of
conscience and free exercise of religion.

Liberty Counsel said Congress lacks the authority to mandate insurance
coverage for individuals or private businesses. It said Liberty University,
the largest and fastest-growing Christian university in the world with more
than 50,000 students, will be a plaintiff in its action.

In forecasting eventual arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawyers
could be anticipating some awkward moments for the White House in its effort
to abandon generations of practice in the U.S. regarding health care. Obama,
during his State of the Union address this year, attacked the court for
changing decades of precedent that allowed campaign spending by some and not
by others.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court
reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -
including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections,"
Obama said in front of the justices who attended the January speech.

Justice Samuel Alito was seen mouthing "not true" in response to the
president, because the ruling contained exclusions for foreign entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts later said such an attack at "a political pep
rally" was "very troubling."

The issue, however, could disappear more quickly than the years estimated
for resolution in the courts.

Already, members of both the House and the Senate have prepared legislation
to repeal the health-care plan, and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he will be
part of that effort.

"When a president and a Congress collude to violate the Constitution and
ignore the American people, everything our nation stands for is at risk,"
DeMint said. "It's not too late to undo the damage. I, and other
Republicans, will work to repeal this monstrosity, and give Americans
freedom to make their own health care choices."

begin 666 printer.gif
M1TE&.#EA% `5`-4``/CX^ 8&!H:&AO?W]\_/S^OKZ]/3T____XZ.CMW=W3-F
M_^WM[3,S_^_O[]?7U^3DY-;6UO+R\O;V]O/S\^[N[N/CXP" ``#_`.;FYE]?
\K*RA\?']34
MU*"@H/7U]+BX@L+"X^/C]#0T+2TM*:FIM'1TSL[",C(Y:6ECW-^#@X*ZN
MKBTM+?'Q\=O;VP```````````````````"'Y! $`````+ `````4`!4```;!
M0(!P2"P:C\BDLE,/A#0**)%42%MA(%V!@0`JO%P#B@'11H]"!DA3(KZRV
MZSVY'I/Q/ 0#!B @ ,!A#@%''H`* )R=%T!`I !&!-"#@*8F9J1D0$Z"T(?
M7 ,-#0D)!*F2D0X;0C;L9 "(R(0BE=IJD6O:J1!A!O`" #%:BI%\JJA#$5
M$4(UA-/4TQD!!AMZ"S/&IL@P)0'7P3)#' LLU=4=!!HYQ$8) ;U]O80&A1%
/`Q,4!0`#!EP`K4F2( `[
`
end

begin 666 icon_email.gif
M1TE&.#EA% `2`.8[`.7I[SL[.7K\.[P\FMSS9X]78VM7=Y9&1D?'V_&YN
M;LG5WO+R\N_O\,# P+O!Q965E=[WJ2ON-KAYN[N[L//VS0U.'AX8R,C%)4
M5;&QN3DY+V]O=G9V:VMK='3U:JJJNON\K3$T9ZGM;6U]WF[='1T?3WO+
MR[S*U3$Q/KZ^M+4UL_5VL[.SOO[_/CY^O#R]+:VMM?7V,71VTI+3*6EIGU]
M?=+:XGEY4!!0OCX^/____7U]?GY^??W]_;V]NGIZCHZ*"@H/O]_M35ULC(
MR/;Y_,S3VF=H:*Z_SM_FZ]75U?3X^O;X^;[ P;_/WKU_M/?ZLC1V8Z2EMC
MXYVILUE?9WM[7Z @H2(C./CXX24H-3Y_O\_)&3E7%Q=GAZ#]!0MWCZ:&S
MPN;FYNCO]F=G9\[7WKC&TL+0V[; Q[BXN.KJZN7FY]_BY.CL\KM\)F9F;*R
MLM#1TMG;WM/3T]OW=O;V[O+VKO,VL#-U_G\_[WN(J*BN#G["'Y! $``#L`
M+ `````4`!(```?_@#N"@X2#&A$4/86+A@A4$!U8C(,O)A!?#R5162@;0(LK
M$4,(3R$)`@==$@@S#81!( AL#3Q'$MA. L+&2A"/SLR?AY!/#PP,2$`$P9H
M)P4$;!$,.R-]QB\P37%O!A]T2#1J$CDFDAW/%XO%!$S12PL=!85*7H9&IX!
M64(\+VXDWGWXT&+*GC1Y"'B8P8"!AB''!LPP4*?*`30T4H@00 2BR! @BC@
MX20&``!_BVHH :*$BXU5%S8T0#"'2+)`(Q))6$E2LU;LS1L&5'CPX( R
M(\!,B34$Q)P9P$(DPVN?@100(1/DQ9:=&3 T$%B0A"&B@2Q,#&$QLU+W3D
#8-/DQJ0,.("3QFUR9Q2(D@%[)@@(!
"`#L`
`
end

WARNING - Crazy winger trying to change the subject.

Laugh...laugh...laugh...

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

You actually wondered about it? It's obvious to the rest of us. Seek help.

RogerN wrote:
WorldNetDaily - Flood of Legal Challenges Rising Against 'Obamacare'
March 23, 2010
By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Congress will be accused in a coming flood of lawsuits of trashing the
Constitution through President Obama's plan to nationalize health
care, according to several groups that already have cases in the
works.

The question will be reduced to whether the federal government has the
authority to demand that Americans pay for a government-specified
health insurance - and it likely will be decided by the U.S. Supreme
Court.

"The individual mandate . is going to be the focus of a lot of
litigation," Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice
told WND today, less than 24 hours after Congress endorsed a plan
that would have the federal government take over one-sixth of the
country's economy.

"There's the issue of whether Congress even has the authority to
require people to participate in something like this, to buy
something they don't want to buy," he said.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, agreed,
telling WND among the primary questions that need to be resolved is
whether the government can mandate citizens to purchase or obtain
health insurance by federal fiat.

"It is a dangerous precedent," he said.

Such thinking logically could be expected to affect other decisions:
If the government opposes a product on any grounds, can it be
forbidden? Or conversely, if the government likes a product, can it
be required?

The ACLJ and Thomas More Law Center are among the activist
organizations preparing legal action to challenge "Obamacare."

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund also were on top of a related
situation, moving forward in four different lawsuits to ensure that
conscience protections - the right to decide a procedure is
objectionable and to not perform it - is maintained for doctors,
nurses, pharmacists and others.


Former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried dismissed the suits as
posturing.
"Anybody who proposes something like this is either ignorant -- I mean,
deeply ignorant -- or just grandstanding in a preposterous way. It is simply
a political ploy and a pathetic one at that," Fried told ABC.

--
John R. Carroll