Obama's War on Religion

Governor Rick Perry was right.  Obama definitely has a war on a religion.  But what is surprising is that he brought this on during an election year. Then again, no one said he was smart.

Obama Overturns 'Mexico City Policy' Implemented by Reagan

From the moment President Barack Obama took the oath, he he has had a war with established religion.  Let's not forget that President Obama overturned the Mexico City policy just three days after his inauguration.  The Mexico City policy, originally implemented by former President Ronald Reagan back in 1984.  Proposed in Mexico City, the rule prohibited (taxpayer-funded) federal funding for family planning services to clinics or groups that offered abortion-related services overseas, even if funding for those activities came from non-government sources.  And thus, all American taxpayers now pay for abortions globally as directed by the Obama Administration.

As an aside, former President Bill Clinton overturned this policy as well back in 1993 and former President George W. Bush re-instated back in 2001.

Obama Signs Health Care Reform Legislation that Funds Abortions

The topic on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a battle in and of itself, but another battle exists - violation of the conscience clause.  Make no mistake, the health care reform legislation great expands abortion and funding of abortion.  Under the guise that abortion and contraception is health care, the legislation puts no restrictions on abortion and contraception "health care" services.

Since the act is funded through general appropriations and not through Health and Human Services funding it circumvents the Hyde Amendment.  The Hyde Amendment had prevent federal insurance plans from funding abortions.  By creating state health care exchanges, state exchanges are not bound by the Hyde Amendment and based on the original intent of the legislation will most certainly fund abortions.

The health care legislation also redefined the meaning of "preventative care" to ensure that abortion funding would be added.  The "preventative care" redefinition also requires private health care plans to accommodate preventative care procedures.  The catch is that the federal government decides what it is.  So regardless if the plan came from the state health care exchanges or through a private health care plan, abortion would need to be covered.  And thus the patient would be paying for coverage that violates their religious conscience.

Obama Administration Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Abortion is not the only issue the Obama Administration redefined.  The Administration pushed for and won the debate on repealing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.  The policy instituted by the Clinton Administration  prohibited discrimination on closet homosexual and bisexual applicants, but barred openly homosexual or bisexual members from enlisting in the military.  While not ideal for the military, it was a policy that worked.

That however was unacceptable to the President Obama.  An issue from the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama promised a full repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.  The repeal was initiated when President Obama make the issue a promise in his 2010 State of the Union address.  The legislation was passed in both chambers of Congress and signed by Obama in December 2011.  The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was completed in September 2011 after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta certified the repeal to Congress.

The new military is now one where religious faithful men and woman in uniform must serve with openly homosexual or bisexual fellow soldiers.  Military chaplains must also serve and minister to behavior that their faith teaches as immoral.  Once again, President Obama put political ideology over religious freedom.  But remember, he does not care.

President Obama Forces the Faithful to Violate their Conscience by Mandating Contraception Funding

The latest assault on religion came this month when the Obama Administration instituted a policy forcing religious institutions to provide for health care coverage of contraception.  By far, this has been the most egregious affront to religious liberty as it forces Jewish and Christian churches, synagogues, schools and hospitals to violate the tenants of their faith and fund contraceptive services and devices.  

What President Obama was not prepared for was the public backlash from religious leaders.  Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the provision "represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty." According to Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s Vice President for Federal Government Affairs, "this mandate, which is binding on all faith-based entities other than a narrowly confined group of religious institutions, offends First Amendment principles."

The backlash forced President Obama to re-assess the situation and on February 10, 2012 he changed his position stating the religious institutions don't have to provide for the contraception, but insurance companies do.  To the religious faithful, this only made the issue worse.

The shift in policy is only a shift in who pays, but the violation of conscience still remains.  Regardless of whether the person wants coverage or not, the health insurance provider will fund it, violating the precepts of their faith for millions of Americans.

Observation

The Obama Administration is  pushing through a radical agenda to transform the United States from a nation whose bedrock was in morals and faith.  The Obama regime is reckless in that public opinion, nor conscience are barometers, for how it governs.  The results of the Obama Administration on basic unalienable rights such as the practice of religion is afforded to us by a higher God, and not by our government.  By when the government is too powerful, it can take those rights away forcing the faithful to violate their own faith by being mandating to adhere to a perceived lifestyle created by their own government.

In closing, perhaps the Obama Administration should take a refresher course on the First Amendment.  Perhaps they should remember that the "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."

Perhaps the Obama Administration review their history books as to why America was colonized.  Look no further than the Plymouth colony in Plymouth, Massachusetts.  For those that forget, it was the English Puritans who settled here because of a conflict with the Church of England.  The violation of religious freedom forced the migration of settlers to American shores in the early 1600s, but where can modern day Americans go under the modern day religious persecution imposed by this regime?

Governor Rick Perry was right.  

Hail Caesar?

Many would have thought that the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, but the current Administration wants to bring him back from the dead.  In what may perhaps the biggest assault on the U.S. Constitution, liberal legislators such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is proposing a change to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Basically, Schumer and his Statist allies what to fast-track certain appointments with a nomination hearing. 

Read this:

Senate Seeks to Create American Caesar

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The Apotheosis Of Barack Obama:
Senatus Populusque Romanus — Imperius Rex et Populusque Americanus

While all of America is distracted and focused on the death of Osama bin Laden, our President and his minions have been fast at work laying the groundwork for S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 to speed through the Senate and then make its way into the House and then to the President to sign. Yes, the other hand is quickly forming into a dictatorial fist that is about to smash our Constitution.

As you will recall, the beginning of the end of liberty in Rome commenced with Augustus Caesar who compromised the authority of the Senate through the force of arms and basically the Senate became a facade. America is poised with this proposed bill, to morph immediately from a Republic into an empire with the privileged eunuchs of the Senate as window dressing and a dictator – the first American Caesar – at the country’s helm.

And leading the progressive charge is Chuck Schumer (D-NY). No big surprise there. Schumer is an elitist Marxist and a first class progressive who hates America almost as much as he loves power. He introduced S. 679 on March 30th, 2011. He was joined by a gaggle of progressives from the left and the right. This is something I have been warning Americans about for a long time. If we are to survive as a nation, we must rid ourselves of ALL progressives or our nation is doomed and freedom will be swept into the dustbin of history. Schumer’s esteemed list of constitutional traitors is as follows:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. John Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

From The Heritage Foundation, here is a succinct explanation of the bill:

The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.

In essence they want to give the President the sole power to appoint people to positions of his choosing within our government. Obama would be free to do this without the approval of the Senate. Senate approval of such positions is mandated by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 2 under the “Appointments Clause”:

… shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (emphasis added)

This bill will do away with the checks and balances that separate an American form of government from those such as Venezuela and Brazil. Already we have power mongers such as Cass Sunstein our Regulatory Czar (more commonly known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and more aptly titled the Office of Government Propaganda) running amok across the US using agencies such as the EPA as a weapon of regulation and control. There is not a single area in our country that Sunstein does not have his claws sunk deep into. It should scare the crap out of Americans, but all I hear are crickets. The silence of capitulation seals our fate as surely as the thunderous applause of approval – so ends the Republic.

More from The Heritage Foundation:

When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

I know Americans have not forgotten about Obama’s string of Czars. Czars that he was supposed to downsize or get rid of. Czars, which in my personal viewpoint, were and still are illegal under the Constitution. But progressives never go away, they just shift… As has done so many of Obama’s Czars. With this sweeping bill, over 200 positions will no longer require Senate approval. Obama will dictate who are his powerful lieutenants and who will control America. The Senate will merely be a sham to parrot Obama’s dictates. With this bill, checks and balances will be effectively nullified.

What does that portend you say? One day, your right to own a gun will be gone, just regulated away. Businesses will be nationalized even more than they are now. Heavy regulation will ensue concerning communications and the Internet. Many, many private businesses will whither and die. You will be told what and how much to eat – food and gas rationing will become the norm. Poverty and squalor will become equal for all as wealth is redistributed to other nations. If there are elections, they will be a joke and pointless. There will be a few powerful elites and then the masses. Guess which camp you and I will be in?

Our best hope at this juncture is that this abomination will be stopped in the House. We must weed out the progressives and we must win in 2012. This country will not survive another four years of progressive policies. Not as a Republic and not as a free entity anyway.

The bitter irony on display here, is that the same jackals that have barked and snarled and feigned horror at “American Imperialism,” are the very ones who now howl their support for a true American empire. All hail Caesar!


McGuffee Cathey Introduced Feb 17, 2007

Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments

Reported by Committee (did not occur)

Senate Vote (did not occur)

House Vote (did not occur)

Signed by President (did not occur)

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

Last Action: Mar 13, 2007: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3016-3017)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-679

McGuffee Cathey TYRANT!!! THEY HAVE DUG UP THE 2007 BILL AND ARE RE-WRITING FOR THIS DAY: Obama and Senate Rewriting Article II

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/7129-obama-and-senate-rewriting-article-ii

McGuffee Cathey more: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s679/show

Obama's Hatred of Limited Government

When Obama has contempt for the framework of our nation, he has contempt for all America stands for.

Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus: Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional

Today, a federal judge in Virginia rules the cornerstone of the Obamacare health care reform bill, unconsitutional.  U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson severed the individual mandate of the law, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance.  Admitted in his ruling, Hudson admits the full judgment over Obamacare rests with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia Attorney General championed the ruling as "a great day for the Constitution."  He also looks forward to the opportunity to have the legality of the Obamacare bill heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.

December 7th: A Beginning of an Experiment, and a Date Which Will Live in Infamy

When most people think of December 7th, they think of only of the two major events to happen on this date.  But for America there are two historic events that have forever changed our nation.

December 7, 1787 is a date every American must know just like July 4th and Christmas.  This date was the day America was born as a nation, when visionaries from the state of Delaware ratified the U.S. Constitution.  The brave step by these founding fathers and patriots of the American Revolution gave birth to a nation that has championed opportunity and liberty for all citizens.  No other nation in the world has been as blessed as this one, and it all started by a little state on the Eastern seaboard to kick start what we have enjoyed for 233 years.

December 7, 1941 marks the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil by a sovereign nation.  Japan's horrific attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was the catalyst that forced the U.S. into a contentious and brutal battle in World War II.  American personal casualties on that tragic day were 2,042 casualties and 1,282 wounded.



President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared December 7, 1941 as a "date which will live in infamy" after the Japan's unannounced provocation of an attack, despite on-going diplomatic negotiations.



As history has shown, this horrific attack catapulted the U.S. in World War II against Japan, Germany and Italy.  Germany and Italy were unrelated to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but to stop communism

Delaware GOP establishment still doesn't understand TEA Party movement

The "TEA Party" movement, more accurately described as the "Patriot Movement" has been alive and well in Delaware since March of 2009. For 20 months, everyday Delawareans have been raising their voices and letting them be heard. Thousands of Delawareans from all political persuasions have sought a new knowledge of America's roots. They have studied the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers along with newer sources like the "5000 Year Leap". They've gathered in churches, fire halls and even pavilions across the state. They've sought knowledge from some of the brightest minds in America like Dr. Moffit from the Heritage foundation. More and more come to each meeting and tell their friends. The numbers just seem to multiply each month! Still they are considered an uneducated and ignorant minority.

Thousands have rallied on street corners, on the Mall in Dover and at the Riverfront in Wilmington for "TEA Parties". They've called for a more fair media, a limited government restrained by the Constitution and an end to the out of control spending in Dover and Washington. Their signs have read "STOP SPENDING!" and "READ THE BILL". They have made it clear that they are Republicans, Independents AND Democrats and that there is no sexuality, gender or color boundary left uncrossed. Still they are labeled racists, bigots and social outcasts.

I have no doubt that radio personalities like Al Mascitti and the bloggers over at Delaware Liberal may be ignorant of what the Patriot Movement stands for. It's equally likely that they know EXACTLY what it stands for, understand the power of that message and therefore feel they must distort it. I cannot read inside their minds but either they are missing the obvious or they are deceitful. The same goes for the Delaware Democrat Party who may be the only group political or otherwise who actually DOES seem to understand the movement. They fear it and as well they should. The Patriot movement threatens to educate the electorate and an educated electorate more often than not leads to greater freedom and less government. That is why the Democrat Party and their operatives (like Maschitti and Delaware Liberal) work so hard to demonize the "TEA Party". They try to marginalize and push those of us who stand for the TEA Party principles to the fringe. They call us extremists, they call us racists and they call us "teabaggers". It's what liberals do, they attack the messenger and not the message because to be honest, their own message doesn't stand up well in the face of opposition.

The problem is that there is one group that clearly doesn't understand the message of the Patriot Movement. The Delaware GOP establishment. Despite the fact that the Patriot Movement came out in the tens of thousands to help Christine O'Donnell defeat longtime Congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in September. Congressman Castle was defeated for three reasons:
1.) He had moved away from his base and had begun courting the Democrats more and more. Perhaps this was in response to the registration numbers, perhaps it was just his nature. Either way he had lost his base. His votes for nearly every spending bill no longer showed him as even a Fiscal Conservative. Most Conservative groups labeled him THE most liberal Republican in the House of Representatives.
2.) He felt like he was entitled to the seat. Castle honestly felt like he didn't have to answer to the people he was sent to represent. This was clear in his answers at the few townhalls he held. It was also evident that Castle had CONTEMPT for many of the Patriot Movement members. He refused to debate or even appear at the same locations as his primary opponent and showed himself to be an elitist who was above those whose votes he desired.
3.) His votes for Cap and Trade and Financial Regulatory Reform soldified his fate. Castle claimed to have read the Cap and Trade bill yet he was stumped about some of the portions of the bill that were read to him by town hall attendees. The Financial Regulatory Reform bill harmed the credit card industry, caused layoffs and generally did little to protect consumers and yet Castle voted for it. He lobbied in FAVOR of Government controlled healthcare before voting AGAINST the bill and then sponsored a bill called the DISCLOSE Act that allowed all current special interests to operate as usual but which would have stifled the very grassroots organizations that threatened his election.

But Castle wasn't the only person that lost. Others around him lost and have faced severe backlash from the Patriot movement and from many Republican voters. Not everyone who lost election did so because they were ideologically like Mike, some lost because they aligned themselves with Mike thinking he was the right political choice. That was a calculation that caused otherwise acceptable candidates to the Patriot Movement to be rejected. For instance, Greenville businesswoman Michele Rollins. In a News Journal article today, Michele Rollins showed that the GOP establishment just doesn't understand the Patriot Movement:

"We need to sit back and say, 'Do we want to be a party of social issues?' If that's the case, then let it be that. But I can't be in that," said businesswoman Michele Rollins, who lost the GOP U.S. House primary to Glen Urquhart.

Urquhart had ripped Rollins for supporting a woman's right to abortion. "No matter how often I said no decent person could be for abortion ... it didn't seem to matter," Rollins said.

Unfortunately, Michele has missed the mark here and her statements are indicitive of the majority of the leadership of the GOP. It was never about social issues. It happened to be that both Christine O'Donnell and Glen Urquhart were not only Fiscal Conservatives but also Social Conservatives however, that was never something that the Patriot movement made an issue. Perhaps below the canal those issues played major roles but New Castle County groups have been focused on three key issues:
1.) Fiscal Responsibility (including cutting spending, lowering taxes and managing the deficit)
2.) Limited Constitutional Government (Government within the bounds of the Constitution which limits Federal power)
3.) Free Markets (Free and open private markets in which people are allowed to innovate, participate and create without government intervention)

Those three issues were issues that Mike Castle and the Delaware GOP as a whole had drifted from. Michele unfortunately aligned herself with Castle which cast her as more of the same. The Republican electorate soundly rejected Castle and that carried on to those they saw as like him. Rightly or wrongly, that's a fact and so is the fact that conservatives in Delaware have felt more and more left out. It's unfortunate for Michele because many of us in the movement saw her as an opportunity where the Patriot Movement and the establishment could have come together. It was not until she campaigned with Castle and positioned herself in percieved opposition to the majority of the electorate that she began to lose favor. In fact, despite her move toward Castle, many Patriots voted for her and not for Castle hence the reason her primary was so close. I for one would not have been disappointed with Michele Rollins and even thought she had the better opportunity to beat John Carney. It is a shame that she and others within the GOP have still not figured out the pulse of the Patriot Movement.

The fact is that the Patriot movement is hard to qualify precisely because it is so grassroots but there are some central themes. A limited federal government who leaves the social issues to the States and who constrains itself within the boundaries of the Constitution leads the way. We also expect the government to get a handle on spending, on the budget deficit and on the out of control taxation. Then we expect the government to ensure that our business markets are free and open to the public and that government stays out of the market as much as possible. The problem is that the Delaware Republican electorate did not see the party embracing these ideals and neither did the Patriot movement. As such, a change was called for. It is never easy for political parties to change but this was so glaring and so obvious that anyone should have seen it. The fact that the Delaware GOP establishment still can't, shows that they may still have learning to do. The Patriot Movement is willing to teach them if need be. The following quote from former 6th District Rep Tom Kovach shows that some establishment Republicans haven't heard the message yet:

"Let's focus on the fiscal conservancy of the party," said former state Rep. Tom Kovach, who lost re-election in a northern New Castle County district

Thanks Tom, we've BEEN focusing on that. The problem is that the establishment wants to pick the candidates themselves for us. Now, in a desperate move to explain rejection by the left AND the right, the establishment is claiming that this was fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives. It was not. Mike Castle was NOT a fiscal conservative and hadn't been in almost 10 years. Mike Castle was not even a MODERATE Republican, he was a Progressive left learning Republican who had more in common with liberal Democrats than he did with conservative Republicans. The people had their say and they chose candidates that should have moved the leadership to understand it needed to moderate BACK to the right in it's choices of candidates. Instead it has confused some moderates and sent Mike Castle into a rage that has led him to conclude that he has to start a war over control of the Republican Party. Castle is now choosing candidates that stand in near direct opposition to what the electorate voted for in September. Time will tell but the hope is that the Delaware GOP will figure it out sooner, rather than later. The only way to win is to work together.

Castle goes all negative as O'Donnell gains

Mike Castle and the DE GOP have released a STRING of negative attacks against conservative TEA Party challenger Christine O'Donnell. They've done everything but claim that she's raped a child (maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas...especially with the lawsuit against the Wilmington Diocese and Christine's Catholic roots...). The problem for them is that their lies and distortions aren't winning them any friends. A poll released today shows O'Donnell trailing the LONG time incumbent Castle by just 2 points! That's right, 2...not 20...2 points. This is WELL within the margin of error, in fact, O'Donnell may be AHEAD by as much as 3 points.

By contrast, O'Donnell has stayed consistent and true to her roots in faith and denounced a video made by liberty.com in which it was suggested that Mike Castle was having an affair with a man. The comment was IMMEDIATELY qualified as being "a rumor" but the damage had been done. The video was released by former consultants to O'Donnell and based on a story done by failed left wing radio hacks "Down with Absolutes". O'Donnell addressed a crowd of over 200 supporters on Sept. 2nd when she said:

"I do not endorse that kind of mudslinging, and I’m asking all of my supporters
not to go down that route. I am challenging Mike Castle to publicly denounce GOP
State Chairman Tom Ross’ mudslinging and ask all of the Delaware State
Republican Committee to stop the thug politics.
From here on out, it should be about the stark contrast between our stances on the issues and let the voters decide based on our positions. Not only is it the high road for Mike Castle to take, it would be politically expedient. His personal attacks
have caused my supporters to rally to my defense."

O'Donnell has been the subject of smears and distortions about her past as well. One of the more virulent attacks recently has been that O'Donnell, who was not born into the lap of luxury that most of the Greenville Republicans were, has taken more than 10 years to pay off debts owed to her Alma mater and receive her diploma. This is something that many millions of Americans can relate to. 65% of 4 yr college students graduate with debt. Can you relate to the expense of college? Millionaires in the Delaware GOP can't, including Mike Castle. They don't understand REAL sacrifice and the effort it takes to go to college and try to make that tuition each month. For that they criticise O'Donnell.

So my challenge to the Delaware GOP is to stop the nasty mudslinging politics (which is the only way they MIGHT win, if we let them) and stand up behind your positions. Stand with CONVICTION the way O'Donnell has. Let's talk about who will best represent Delaware in the Senate. Can Mike Castle, who has an F-rating from the NRA, who has voted for Cap and Trade and who has consistently voted to increase spending and taxes, stand up to O'Donnell whose platform is to lower government spending, reduce taxes, protect the Constitution and get government out of the way so the private sector can create jobs?

Governor Christie...Seriously?

So you said in your Weekly Standard video endorsement of Mike Castle (RINO-DE) that

"Mike understands that our nation's most urgent priority is the economy and that
the path to restoring America's prosperity requires making tough, responsible
decisions," said Governor Christie. "He is the strong voice that the people of
Delaware need in the Senate to get our fiscal house back in order and get
Americans back to work."

Really? I mean, have you even had a staffer SNIFF Congressman Castle's record or are you already willing to sell out those conservative values that got you elected? Here's why I ask that question.

I thought, maybe I'm WRONG about Congressman Castle. Maybe he IS a budget hawk. This is what I found:

FACT - Castle voted for TARP (the $700 Billion bailout of the financial industry in 2008

FACT - In 2008 the American Conservative Union and Club for Growth (Fiscal conservatism) rated Mike Castle at 28% and 26% respectively.

FACT - Castle voted FOR the Auto-bailout that resulted in GM being owned by the unions and taxpayers

FACT - American for Fair Taxation rated Mike Castle as a -1 against the FairTax measure

FACT - Castle Voted FOR permanently raising taxes on businesses

FACT - In 2008 the National Tax Payers Union gave Congressman Castle a D rating

FACT - Voted AGAINST making the Bush tax cuts permanent, capping discretionary spending at $973 billion and imposing a moratorium on earmarks

FACT - Congressman Castle supported the interests of the National Small Business Association 60 percent of the time from 2007-2008

FACT - Castle voted FOR the Obama Omnibus spending bill that increased spending 8% on TOP of the Stimulus packages

So again Gov. Christie, where is your consistency? Where is your intellectual HONESTY? Then again, I did find this interesting tidbit. Governor Christie plans to use Cap and Trade funds to pay down the New Jersey debt. This story cites his plan to do it using the state money. Why not also work to pass national cap and trade legislation so he can pump even MORE money into his scheme? Who better to support for U.S. Senate and to ensure Cap and Trade passage than the man who already voted for it in the U.S. House, Congressman Mike Castle? I guess the Constitution, limited government and lower taxes only matter to Gov. Christie when he needs votes.

Christine O'Donnell lays out legislative priorities

One week after a Rasmussen Reports poll showed that Christine O'Donnell currently wins in a general election against Democrat Chris Coons and days after adding the Susan B. Anthony List to her ever growing list of endorsements, O'Donnell fires another shot at her detractors.

First, O'Donnell lays into her Primary opponent Mike Castle

"Mike Castle is an enemy of the free market," claims O'Donnell. "He voted for Cap and Trade, the single most dangerous bill proposed in American history. If enacted, that legislation will cripple American industry, cause energy prices to soar and destroy American jobs. Barack Obama himself said that Cap and Trade would make energy costs 'necessarily skyrocket.' Yet Mr. Castle continues to support the bill." (Read more about Cap and Trade here)

Time after time, Mike Castle's votes prevent the free market from functioning the way it should: rewarding winners and penalizing losers. His vote for TARP enabled a $700 billion never-ending bailout for the very financial industry wizards who caused the subprime mortgage crisis. With American tax dollars, Mike Castle has made multi-millionaires out of the worst culprits of the Wall Street fiasco."

"Mike Castle voted for Cash for Clunkers. He voted against a measure to balance the federal budget within ten years. He voted against earmark reform. The list goes on and on."

"Mike Castle's voting record proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is for special interests, against the free market, anti-Second Amendment, pro-abortion and he's even for sanctuary cities. It's a preposterous record. Calling himself a Republican is borderline schizophrenic, confused about his own political identity."

"Mike Castle is the worst kind of career politician. To be a Republican, you must stand and fight for America's founding principles of limited government," continues Christine O'Donnell. "That notion is lost on Mike Castle, and Delaware deserves better leadership. Today, I'm releasing five legislative priorities that any Republican except Mike Castle can and should get behind."

For months, elite Republican leaders in Delaware and Progressives in the Republican party have claimed that even if Ms. O'Donnell can beat Mike Castle in the primary election and Chris Coons in the general, she has not given an indication of her legislative priorities. Their attacks have even caused rank and file Republicans and some T.E.A. Party members to be wary of voting for O'Donnell for U.S. Senate. To those who question what Ms. O'Donnell will do when she gets to Washington, she has issues the following 5 Legislative Priorities:

1) Lower personal income taxes, capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes so that we can restore economic growth, create jobs and stability for our small businesses and working families.

2) Defund and repeal Obamacare.

3) Enact a 2-year capital gains tax holiday to spur economic growth and new investment, inject capital into the consumer market and free up capital for lending to small businesses.

4) Secure the border.

5) Restrict the federal government from using taxpayer funds for abortion.

To learn more, please visit http://www.Christine2010.com/

What do you say Delaware? Is it time for Delaware's Senators to be fiscally responsible? Is it time for Delaware's Senators to be defenders of the Constitution? Is it time for Delaware's Senators to get government OUT of Free Markets? Isn't it time that the First State became a leader in America again? Isn't it time we brought out our inner Caesar Rodney?

Free Speech Now Under Attack by Congressman Castle

H.R. 5175 is now being pushed through the house. This is the bill co-written by Delaware's own Mike Castle which is intended to reverse the Supreme Court decision from earlier this year that upheld that per the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause, government has no business regulating political speech. Those opposed to the ruling said it would flood politics with corporate dollars which would of course dilute the all powerful Union money and of course even out the system and allow EVERYONE a voice. Progressives and their union friends can't have that now can they?

Once again Congressman Castle has his heart in the right place with this bill but he overreaches again with his Progressive friends in Congress. The bill seeks to prohibit government contractors and those negotiating for government contracts from participating in electioneering on behalf of candidates and/or parties. The question is, would this include the unions like SEIU, AFSCME and the AFL-CIO? Would the unions who currently hold government contracts be excluded from the bill? According to the Campaign for Liberty, thanks to the NRA's sweetheart deal that provides "parity" across ideological lines, the answer is yes. Organizations with more than 1 million members across all 50 states and who have been around for more than 10 years would be exempt from this provision. Why not just say no to everyone regardless of size if they have a government contract? Also, why does the bill limit the size of the contract to to above $7,000,000 taxpayer dollars in order to qualify for these rules? If you really want to stop these expenditures by government contractors why don't we stop them all regardless of the size of the contract?

The bill also stops foreign business owners from influencing elections. I haven't read anything in the bill relating to this condition that I do not think is fair. There's no reason foreign nationals should be influencing American elections.

The next section details coordinated campaign communications. This portion of the bill explains that American groups/corporations/unions cannot coordinate their messages with the political campaigns. The bill states that it stops donors from evading “contribution limits by making campaign expenditures which, while technically qualifying as independent expenditures under law, are for all relevant purposes coordinated with candidates and political parties and thus raise the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption". Someone should talk to SEIU and Barack Obama about that. I guess that means no more block walking with their union shirts on?

The next section mandates that all persons/corporations who make independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 must file an electronic report which will be made public. Corporations must also release the individual names of their employees who contribute to 3rd party funds that are used to make independent political expenditures. The bill further goes on to mandate that companies use specific types of their own funds for candidate assistance and even suggests that they should use a separate bank account.

Disclosure must include the name of the organization, the top funder (if an individual) or the top 5 funders if a group. Each must make a statement authorizing the message.

As usual, government's solution to the problem is to stand on liberty's throat. What we need in the bill is the following AND ONLY THE FOLLOWING:
1.) It must prohibit active government contractors and those negotiating for contracts(including labor unions) from engaging in electioneering.
2.) It must stop majority owned foreign corporations and foreign nationals from engaging in electioneering or contributing to political segregated funds.
3.) It must mandate full disclosure of each organizations total expenditures per candidate and mandate that ever political advertisement contain a full disclosure of the core group that funds it. (this means if the ad is placed by "Working Families for Skunks and Possums" which is funded by ACORN...ACORN must be identified as the funding group)

Prayer Deemed Illegal in Washington, DC

Today, a sad event occured in Washington, DC. A Reverend was arrested on public ground for praying.

Click on this link and watch the videos: http://bound4life.com/blog/2010/06/08/prayer-made-illegal-in-washington-dc

It sounds like someone needs an education on the the First Amendment.