State Interference in Church Blatant attempt to Circumvent U.S. Constitution

Doubtless encouraged by the Obamanation's so far successful efforts to ignore the constitution, other dark forces were prompted this month to try to sneak past the U.S. Constitution's separation of Church and State provisions. I haven't heard bugger all about this in the International midstream media, I first had to read it on Michael Savage's website, and then later on the Knights of Columbus website.

I'm referring to the Connecticut state legislature's raised bill 1098, which would have stripped the Catholic Church's bishops and priests (and only the Catholic Church's) of all authority over the administration of their parishes and dioceses, and arbitrarily hand that authority over to elected boards. In effect, the nationalization of the Catholic Church in Connecticut. Such a bill wouldn't stand up to an HONEST constitutional challenge because of it's blatant violation of the 1st amendment prohibiting the passing of any law regarding state control of any church.

Note I emphasized the word honest. Anything is possible in today's Obamanation. I recall from my history lessons (which I doubt are taught anywhere in North America anymore) how the Soviet Union's constitution had many provisons guaranteeing personal freedoms, yet that State pretty well ignored them all. I also remember how Adolf Hitler took over control of Germany's churches as a part of his planned consolidation of his control over German society, prior to WWII. Now in Barrack Obama's America, the Obamanation, a trial balloon for state control over the Church.

Thankfully, the legislature abandoned this flawed legislation after it's attempt to sneak it onto the books was exposed and protest rallies organized.
Earlier this week, 5,000 people showed up at the legislature to protest the proposed bill.

Ironic isn't it, that the ACLU has been silent on this matter. Naw, not really. It's common knowlege that they're a pack of Christian-hating hypocritcal bastards anyway.

The great Bailout Swindle

One of my favorite authors, Dr. Jerry Pournelle, made an interesting observation last week. He was musing about how Pretender Barrack Obama's Trillion-dollar bailout related to the actual losses in the sub-prime mortgage crisis. They don't appear to be very closely related at all.

Consider:" Assume 3 million real estate loans in default. Assume an average of $3000 a month for payments. That's nine billion dollars a month. Call it ten billion a month. That adds up to $120 billion a year, a healthy sum, but had that been paid, there would have been no collapse due to "toxic" mortgages and mortgage based securities. "


Assuming the government took over ownership of the affected homes and rented them back to their former owners the net cost could be as low as 70 billion a year. That's a far far cry from Obama's Trillion dollar political-pork solution.

Why wasn't this idea used?

Read the rest.