The Government & The Ten Commandments

Subject: Do You Know This?
------

This 1768 parchment (612×502 mm) byJekuthiel Sofer emulated the 1675 

Ten Commandments at the Amsterdam Esnogasynagogue.^[1]

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps
to the building which houses the
U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the
world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing
forward with a full frontal view ... It is Moses and he is holding the Ten
Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme
Court courtroom, the two huge oak
doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right
above where the Supreme Court Judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments.

DID YOU KNOW? There are
Bible verses etched in stone all over the
Federal Buildings and Monuments in
Washington , D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth
president, known as 'The Father
of Our Constitution' made the Following
statement: 'We have staked the whole of all
our political Institutions upon the capacity of
mankind for Self-government, upon
the capacity of each and all of
us to govern ourselves, to
control ourselves, to sustain
ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.'

DID YOU KNOW? Every session of Congress
begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the
taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution
were members of the established Orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW? Thomas Jefferson worried
that the Courts would overstep their
authority and instead of Interpreting the law
would begin making law an oligarchy: the rule of few over many. How then,
have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in
this Country is now suddenly wrong and Unconstitutional?
Lets put it around the world and let
the world see and remember what this great
country was Built on The Holy Bible
and belief in GOD!!

WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
IS OUR "HOMELAND SECURITY"

If you agree, pass this on!

Moses with the Ten Commandments by Rembrandt(1659)

source: pictures from Wikipedia

source: information from the Constitution Party

Obamacare or The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Urgh!

"Obamacare" Fast Facts Facts 


About The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare” 

• Individual mandate requiring all U.S. citizens to have health insurance either through private companies, their employers, or state-sponsored exchanges. Failure to do so will result in a fine. 

• Insurance companies banned from denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing health conditions. 

• Insurance companies required to include preventative health care at no extra cost, banned from setting limits on payouts for coverage. 

• Companies employing over 50 people required to provide those employees with health insurance. 

• Children allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until 26 years of age.

source:http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-care-fast-facts/1263188.html

Health Care and the Facts-on-the-Ground Presidency

JUN 28 2012, 12:39 PM ET

From health care reform to immigration, President Obama is counting on Washington's inertia to make changes that last.

Wikimedia Commons

Republican reaction to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act was swift and outraged. Romney Press Secretary Andrea Saul tweeted that he'd raised more than $300,000 in the first hour after the verdict was announced. "The only way to save the country from ObamaCare's budget-busting government takeover of health care is to elect a new president," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as Republicans launched a #FullRepeal hashtag on Twitter and announced another (and largely symbolic) House vote to repeal the ACA the week of July 9.


But with the Supreme Court having upheld the ACA, Republicans are now clearly fighting a rear-guard action against a law that is partially implemented and which seems likely to grow in popularity now that it has been ratified and turned into something people can look forward to taking advantage of over time. The Supreme Court decision forces Republicans to express their conservatism not through new program proposals but by standing athwart history yelling stop. Obama has created a set of facts on the ground, and the inertial power of Washington and massive complexity of the health-care field that made universal health-care coverage little more than a Democratic fantasy from 1948 through 2009 will now tip the balance of power in the direction the president has set. Republicans can rail about it all they like, but in Washington, it is hard to ever completely undo what has been done.
...
source:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-facts-on-the-ground-presidency/259110/#

Update...This will give you a chuckle!...President Invokes Executive Privilege Over "Fast & Furious" Documents. Will This Be A "Monica Lewinsky" Type Case?

This is awesome!

 

-----------------------end update--------------------------------------------
As you may already know, Eric Holder, who was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States on February 3, 2009 by Vice President Joe Biden, used EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, approved of by President Obama, regarding the documents that were subpoenaed in the case of "Fast & Furious". 

According to news media outlets, past U.S. Presidents have used this EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE on numerous occasions with success.  Some of these outlets have also emphasize that this is just a political probe in the first place, that it is an attempt by Republicans to make Obama look bad during an election.

Here is the letter invoking this current attempt at the utilization of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  Please note that Issa is said to have reported that Holder did not mention using EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE yesterday, during their meeting.  Why would that be?  What is going on that needs to be swept under the rug?

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
June 20, 2012
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

After you rejected the Department's recent offers of additional accommodations, you stated that the Committee intends to proceed with its scheduled meeting to consider a resolution citing the Attorney General for contempt for failing to comply with the Committee's subpoena of October 11, 2011. I write now to inform you that the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents.

We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we have taken to address the Committee's concerns and to accommodate the Committee's legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast and Furious. Although we are deeply disappointed that the Committee appears intent on proceeding with a contempt vote, the Department remains willing to work with the Committee to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues.

Over the last fourteen months, the Department has provided a significant amount of information to the Committee in an extraordinary effort to accommodate the Committee's legitimate oversight interests. The Department has provided the Committee with over 7,600 pages of documents and has made numerous high-level officials available for public congressional testimony, transcribed interviews, and briefings. Attorney General Holder has answered congressional questions about Fast and Furious during nine public hearings, including two before the Committee. The Department has devoted substantial resources to responding to
these congressional inquiries.

In addition, upon learning of questions about the tactics used in Fast and Furious, the Attorney General promptly asked the Department's Acting Inspector General to open an investigation into the operation. This investigation continues today. We expect that the Inspector General's report will further help the Department to understand how these mistakes occurred and to ensure that they do not occur again.

Finally, the Department has instituted a number of significant reforms to ensure that the mistakes made in Fast and Furious are not repeated. For example, a directive was issued to the field prohibiting the flawed tactics used in that operation from being used in future law enforcement operations. Leadership and staffing at ATF and the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office were reorganized, and A TF instituted new policies to ensure closer supervision by ATF management of significant gun trafficking cases. The Criminal Division refined its process for reviewing wiretap authorization requests by its Office of Enforcement Operations. And component heads were directed to take additional care to provide accurate information in response to congressional requests, including by soliciting information directly from employees with detailed personal knowledge of the subject matter at issue.

The Committee's original report accompanying its contempt resolution identified three "main categories" of interest: (1) "Who at Justice Department Headquarters Should Have Known of the Reckless Tactics"; (2) "How the Department Concluded that Fast and Furious was 'Fundamentally Flawed"'; and (3) "How the Inter-Agency Task Force Failed." Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Report at 39-40 (June 15, 20 12). With respect to the first category, the thousands of pages of documents and other information we have provided establish that the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious were initiated and carried out by personnel in the field over several years and were not initiated or authorized by Department leadership. We have also provided the Committee with significant information with respect to the third category. In a revised report issued late last week, the Committee has made clear that these categories will not be the subject of the contempt vote. See Report at 41.

Rather, the Committee has said that the contempt vote will address only the second category, "How the Department Concluded that Fast and Furious was 'Fundamentally Flawed." See Report at 42; Letter for Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, from Darrell E. Issa, Chairman at 1-2 (June 13, 2012) ("Chairman's Letter"). In this regard, your letter of June 13 stated that the Committee is now "focused on" "documents from after February 4, 2011, related to the Department's response to Congress and whistleblower allegations" concerning Operation Fast and Furious, in order to "examine the Department's mismanagement of its response to Operation Fast and Furious." !d. The Committee has explained that it needs these post-February 4 documents, including "those relating to actions the Department took to silence or retaliate against Fast and Furious whistleblowers," so that it can determine "what the Department knew about Fast and Furious, including when and how it discovered its February 4 letter was false, and the
Department's efforts to conceal that information from Congress and the public." Report at 33.

The Department has gone to great lengths to accommodate the Committee's legitimate interest in the Department's management of its response to congressional inquiries into Fast and Furious. The information provided to the Committee shows clearly that the Department leadership did not intend to mislead Congress in the February 4 letter or in any other statements concerning Fast and Furious. The Department has already shared with the Committee all internal documents concerning the drafting of the February 4letter, and numerous Department officials and employees, including the Attorney General, have provided testimony, transcribed interviews, briefings, and other statements concerning the drafting and subsequent withdrawal of that letter.

This substantial record shows that Department officials involved in drafting the February 4 letter turned to senior officials of components with supervisory responsibility for Operation Fast and Furious- the leadership of ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona- and were told in clear and definitive terms that the allegations in Ranking Member Grassley's letters were false. After the February 4 letter was sent, such assurances continued but were at odds with information being provided by Congress and the media, and the Attorney General therefore referred the matter to the Acting Inspector General for review.

As the Department's review proceeded over the next several months, Department leaders publicly indicated that the facts surrounding Fast and Furious were uncertain and that the Department had significant doubts about the assertions in the February 4 letter. For example, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011, the Attorney General testified that the Department's Acting Inspector General was reviewing "whether or not Fast and Furious was conducted in a way that's consistent with" Department policy, stating "that's one of the questions that we'll have to see." The next day, May 4, 2011, in response to a question from Senator Grassley at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about allegations that ATF had not interdicted weapons, the Attorney General said, "I frankly don't know. That's what the [Inspector General's] investigation ... will tell us." As you have acknowledged, Department staff reiterated these doubts during a briefing for Committee staff on May 5, 2011. Testifying before the Committee in June 2011, Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, acknowledged that "obviously allegations from the A TF agents ... have given rise to serious questions about how ATF conducted this operation." He added that "we're not clinging to the statements" in the February 4 letter.

In October 2011, the Attorney General told the Committee that Fast and Furious was "fundamentally flawed." This statement reflected the conclusion that Department leaders had reached based on the significant effort over the prior months to understand the facts of Fast and Furious and the other Arizona-based law enforcement operations. The Attorney General reiterated this conclusion while testifying before Congress in November 2011. The Department's many public statements culminated in the formal withdrawal of the February 4 letter on December 2, 2011.

The Department has substantially complied with the outstanding subpoena. The documents responsive to the remaining subpoena items pertain to sensitive law enforcement activities, including ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions, or were generated by Department officials in the course of responding to congressional investigations or media inquiries about this matter that are generally not appropriate for disclosure.

In addition to these productions, we made extraordinary accommodations with respect to the drafting and subsequent withdrawal of the February 4 letter, producing to the Committee 1,364 pages of deliberative documents. And we accepted your June 13 letter's invitation to "mak[ e] a serious offer" of further accommodation in hopes of reaching "an agreement that renders the process of contempt unnecessary." Chairman's Letter at 2. Specifically, we offered to provide the Committee with a briefing, based on documents that the Committee could retain, explaining further how the Department's understanding of the facts of Fast and Furious evolved during the post-February 4 period, as well as the process that led to the withdrawal of the February 4 letter. See Letter for Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General at 1 (June 14, 2012). We also offered to provide you with an understanding of the documents that we could not produce and to address any remaining questions that you had after you received the briefing and the documents on which it was based. We believe that this additional accommodation would have fully satisfied the Committee's requests for information. We are therefore disappointed that the Committee has not accepted our offer and has chosen instead to proceed with the scheduled contempt vote.

As I noted at the outset, the President, in light of the Committee's decision to hold the contempt vote, has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4 documents.

The legal basis for the President's assertion of executive privilege is set forth in the enclosed letter to the President from the Attorney General. In brief, the compelled production to Congress of these internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Department's response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences. As I explained at our meeting yesterday, it would inhibit the candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch's ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight. Such compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the Constitution and would potentially create an imbalance in the relationship between these two.co-equal branches of the Government.

In closing, while we are deeply disappointed that the Committee intends to move forward with consideration of a contempt citation, I stress that the Department remains willing to work toward a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we can be assistance.

Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Minority Member

Sincerely,

James M. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

In a case with Clinton in 1998, when there was an attempt to use EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE to sweep the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation under the rug, he was denied because it became apparent that the details of the investigation were too important to follow through with to accept the EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  

President Is Denied Executive PrivilegeBy Peter Baker and Susan SchmidtWashington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01
A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.
In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said.
source: WASHINGTON POST

Regarding the issue of defining EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, I quote Wikipedia here.

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity. 

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

What happens if the panel cites Eric Holder in contempt?  Here is your answer.

What happens if panel cites Holder for contempt?
updated 1:56 PM EDT, Wed June 20, 2012
(CNN) -- The House Oversight Committee is considering a contempt measure against Attorney General Eric Holder over documents sought by the panel investigating the botched gun-running sting called Operation Fast and Furious. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama entered the dispute by asserting executive privilege over the documents sought by committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-California.
Here are the issues around the dispute:
Q: What is a contempt citation?  
A: Congress can vote to hold a congressional witness in contempt of Congress if it considers the witness to be obstructing its ability to carry out its constitutional powers. For a person to be held in contempt, Congress must vote on a contempt citation in committee.
The process involves a series of legal maneuvers including the president's ability to assert executive privilege, as he did in this case, which has historically made executive branch officials immune from criminal prosecution.
Q: Why is a contempt citation being considered against Holder?A: Issa may hold Holder in contempt for failing to hand over all of the documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious, the botched Justice Department sting operation linked to the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and a number of Mexican citizens from some of the 2,000 weapons that fell into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.
Q: When is the last time an executive branch official faced a contempt citation?A: Although this is the first time an attorney general has faced a potential contempt citation, other executive branch officials have been held in contempt of Congress.
Most recently, George W. Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten were held in contempt of Congress despite Bush asserting executive privilege in their case. During the vote in early 2008, a large number of Republicans walked out in protest of what they saw as a partisan vote.
Miers and Bolten were accused of failing to cooperate in a congressional investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and allegations that the White House was using the Justice Department for political aims. Their citations marked the first time White House officials had been found in contempt of Congress.
source: CNN

This is becoming quite an interesting process and may be more scandalous than we already have been seeing.  Will the Supreme Court make the right decision, or will they be threatened like they have been said to be regarding the Obamacare issue?  
APIn this July 20, 1999, photo, President Bill Clinton shakes hand with Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, right, as Attorney General Janet Reno looks on at a American Bar Association Presidential Call to Action event at the White House in Washington.

Obama. The Judge of All In The Land. Forget the Constitution.

It seems that Obama's ego is much bigger than most of us imagined.  He must think that he is THE JUDGE of ALL in the land and that we should just forget the Constitution.  If this is not an indication of how badly he needs to be ousted, what is?  

FED APPEALS COURT TO DOJ: YOU HAVE UNTIL THURSDAY TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PRESIDENT MEANT BY ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ & ‘UNELECTED GROUP’

• Posted on April 3, 2012 

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”)...

... a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law...

“That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Judge Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.” 

He then told the attorneys that the DOJ must address this issue in “no less than three pages, single spaced” by noon on Thursday, according to Fox. 

“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48 hours from now — a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president,” Smith said. 

“What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?” Smith asked...

Since the appeals court issued its order, the Obama administration has responded via White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. 

“Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional,” Carney said Tuesday, according to Fox. 

Carney said the president was specifically talking about “the precedent under the Commerce Clause” regarding a legislature’s ability to address “challenges to our national economy.” 

Update - Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department will respond “appropriately” to a federal appellate judge in Texas who demanded a letter recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress... 

“Under our system of government … courts have the final say on the constitutionality of statutes. The courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people, Congress, pass,” Holder said...

SOURCE: THE BLAZE

OBAMA STUMBLES THROUGH ANSWER WHEN CONFRONTED ON HEALTH CARE LAW’S FUTURE 

“First of all, let me be very specific,” Obama said before launching into a nearly six-minute response filled with pauses and blank stares. “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce, a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner, so we’re going back to the thirties, pre New Deal.”

“The point I was making was that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly-elected legislature, our congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

“Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court to actually recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there.”

While struggling to connect his thoughts, he went on to say he is not getting contingency plans ready because he expects the law to be upheld.

But Obama’s assertion that such a law dealing with the Commerce Clause has not been overturned is a curious one. For example, in 1994 the court struck down school-zone gun legislation that was based on that part of the Constitution.

On Monday, Fox’s Judge Andrew Napolitano ripped into the president for inaccuracies in his argument for the law and against the Court:

Notice his chin is always up, as if he is better than any of the rest of us. His body language is important to note because it says everything about his character.

Here are some arrogant statements that I am adding as I search for video with the body language issue.

AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT.

Bashford: But what about your other records? We know that George W. Bush was a “C” student, because we saw his academic records. When will you release your academic records and writings – from Occidental College in California to Harvard Law? 

Obama: Let me be clear about this: My academic records will remain under seal because I didn’t give up my right to privacy just because I was elected president of the United States. Besides, those Oxy records might show I received financial aid as a foreign student. Beyond that, my academic writings are embarrassingly Marxist (more chuckles). And I don’t mean Groucho Marxist. … 

Bashford: Have you noticed that the health-care law you promised would reduce health insurance premiums has resulted in increased premiums? 

Obama: No, I hadn’t noticed that, because as president I don’t pay for health care. Besides I don’t believe it because I don’t want to. Furthermore, the real savings from the reform bill won’t kick in until the middle of my next term. … 

Bashford: More on jobs. Why did you really scotch the Keystone pipeline? 

Obama: I put the kibosh on that because Congress pushed me when I wanted to wait until after the election. Nobody pushes Barack Obama. I am the president! I am chief executive! … We’re heading for a new energy future! An alternative energy future! … And we will reach that future because I say so! And … and … and … Sorry. I just get a little upset when my authority is challenged, like by that ornery Arizona governor. 

Bashford: Very well. Didn’t you – a lawyer – know it was unethical and illegal when you, as board president of a federally funded organization in Chicago, nominated your wife to be its paid executive director? 

Obama: Wow! Nobody has ever asked me that question! But there’s a simple answer: Anti-corruption laws hardly ever apply in Illinois. … Besides, Michelle and I needed the money.

SOURCE: WND.COM 

THE OBAMA'S DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WITH LEFT HAND TO CHEST INSTEAD OF RIGHT HAND TO HEART.

And for anyone who thinks this may be a "mirror-image" picture, please note thewedding rings on the ring fingers of their LEFT HANDS and the RIGHT side of the "Messiah's" suit coat where the buttons are. 

As any American knows, we place our right hand over our heart when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS 

ACCORDING TO OBAMA 

(reprinted from: http://www.patriotdepot.com/TenCommandmentsTshirt.aspx) 

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.)    

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore.  

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. 

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. 

V. Honor thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money.  

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby.  

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed.  

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives.  

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian.  

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. 

SOURCE: THE BARACK OBAMA COLLECTION

THE OBAMA CHIN...

With President Obama, one of the most prominent features in his body language is his chin.
Do you recall the phrase, "looking down your nose at someone?"  

Confidence sometimes shows itself in an elevated chin lift. When the chin lift becomes extreme, it is viewed as arrogance and that "you are looking down your nose at me". 

This body language took on new meaning when President Obama first came into public view where he was quickly labeled "arrogant" and "cocky" in some of his speeches.  

Patterns were observed that during the time of a speech where he received audience approval, his chin went even higher.

SOURCE: SEAMUSORILEY 


I WILL CERTAINLY FIND MORE TO BE POSTED TO COME.  IT'S DISGUSTING THAT HIS BEHAVIOR IS AS IT IS!  HE MUST BE OUSTED THIS ELECTION CYCLE FOR SOMEONE WHO WILL WORK FOR THE PEOPLE AND TREAT THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT!