Report with videos - Obama Ballot Challenge Press Conference

Report with videos - Obama Ballot Challenge Press Conference

One hour and 47 minutes of this milestone event in preventing Obama’s name from being on the ballot.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/04/video-florida-ballot-challenge-press.html

IMPORTANT AND LENGTHY - Florida Ballot Challenge Article by Mike Voeltz

Circle of Exclusion

    It is a fact that Supreme Court holdings have mandated that the ministerial duties of the Secretaries of State, prescribed by the state legislatures must be with discretion to Article 2, for presidential elections.

“In any election but a Presidential election, the Florida Supreme Court can give as little or as much deference to Florida executives as it chooses, so far as Article 2 is concerned, and this court will have no cause to question the court’s actions.  But, with respect to a Presidential election, the court must be both mindful of the legislature’s role under Article 2 in choosing the manner of appointing electors, and deferential to those bodies expressly empowered to carry out its constitutional mandate.” Bush v. Gore 531 U.S 98, 114 (2000)

      Certainly it is not the intention of the court that the Supreme Court can mandate only some exclusions, and time requirements of Article 2 be followed by the state legislatures, but not others.

 “Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same day throughout the United States; but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and federal influence might be excluded.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 35 (1892)

     There are two sets of people that are deemed “ineligible” in Article 2. Members of the state and federal governments are ineligible to be electors, and those persons who are not natural born Citizens are ineligible to be President.

       In a bold move that can only be described as nakedly irresponsible, and possibly criminal, the Florida legislature has excused Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from taking the “Federal Candidate Oath”, as mandated by Fla. ss. 99.021(2). By performing the oath, the candidates claim that they are “constitutionally eligible” for the office they seek. With the signing of HB 1355, Gov. Rick Scott has enacted ss. 99.021 (3), excusing the President and Vice President candidates from taking the oath. At that time (May 2011) I realized that the Usurpation of the Presidency by an illegal non natural born Citizen was aided and abetted not only by both sides of the political aisle, but also by the state governments.

    99.021(3) is incompatible with Supreme Court mandate that the states must do ministerial duty with discretion to Article 2, since without the performance of the Federal Candidate Oath, no ministerial duty, with respect to eligibility requirements of Article 2 and the 12^th Amendment, is done at all. In essence, the Florida legislature has amended Article 2 and Amendment 12, by requiring no eligibility standard at all. It is also incompatible with Florida statute 102.168 (contest of election or nomination), and the holding of Shevin v. Stone (1972).

     “Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end. Any challenge to the correctness of the candidate’s compliance is for appropriate judicial determination upon any challenge properly made, as here.” Shevin v. Stone 279 So. 2d. 17, 22 (1972). See also Cherry v. Stone 265 So. 2d 56, 58 (1972), Taylor v. Crawford 116 So. 41, 42.

    By excluding the President and Vice Presidential candidates from taking the oath, the state of Florida has simply legislated away ministerial duty mandated by the Florida and Federal Supreme court, and has taken away the point of contention supplied to voters contesting the election by ss.102.168. By the law of statutory construction, 99.021(3) is therefore illegal and invalid. New statute 99.021(3) also violates the mandate contained in the Florida Statutes that the Secretary must “educate the voters” (Fl. Ss. 97.021(6)). We the people are given no guidance whatsoever of the Constitutional eligibility of any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate, and are thus hampered in fulfilling our Florida voter oath to “protect and defend the US Constitution, and the Constitution of Florida” (Fla. ss. 92.021(2)), by the filing of “contests of election or nomination” suits. Likewise, the Secretary of State is violating his oath to “support the US Constitution and the Constitution of Florida”.( Fl. Ss. 876.05). The State of Florida is also violating our 14^th Amendment right of equal protection, since all states are mandated by the Supreme Court to do ministerial duty with discretion to Article 2, and the 12^th Amendment in a Presidential election. Once given the right of franchise by the state, 14^th Amendment rights must be protected.

      “("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964), Bush v. Gore, 532 US 98, 105 (2000)

      The ministerial duty prescribed by the Florida legislature in 99.021(3) pays no discretion to Article 2 and the 12^th Amendment, and leaves the possibility that no candidate on the Presidential ballot is constitutionally eligible, leading to a possible invalidation of Florida votes upon later determination of ineligibility.

     The oath, according to the Florida Department of Florida Elections Advisory Opinion, is precisely performed to discourage an ineligible candidate from running for office. It transfers legal liability for the eligibility of the candidate to the candidate him/her self, under penalty of fraud.

      “Falsely swearing an oath arising from an election is a felony in the third degree (Fl. Ss.104.011 (1)). The responsibility, therefore, is on the candidate, not the qualifying officer, to ensure that the candidate is qualified for the office the candidate is seeking”  (Fla. Department of Elections Advisory Opinion 11-05 Qualifying- Role of Qualifying Officers.)

      As it stands, no Florida Elections official, nor any Democrat Party official, nor Barack Obama himself, has claimed that Barack H. Obama is a natural born Citizen, eligible for President. Nor have they even made the general claim that he is Constitutionally eligible.  Anyone can get their name placed on the Florida Presidential ballot, according to Florida statute, and the winner would face no penalty at all for his ineligibility.  Creative wordsmith is used at all levels to blur our view that the emperor has no clothes. In fact the 2008 Nomination Certificate for the state of Florida, from the DNC, signed by Nancy Pelosi, claims that Obama was “duly nominated”. Of course that doesn’t mean “constitutionally eligible”. Its meaning is much like the procedural meaning of Fl. Statute 99.061 (6), where the Secretary of State of Florida has placed the names of the “duly qualified” candidates on the ballot, with no claim made that the candidate is actually eligible.

   “(6) The Department of State shall certify to the supervisor of elections, within 7 days after the closing date for qualifying, the names of all duly qualified candidates for nomination or election who have qualified with the Department of State. Fla. ss. 99.061(6)

     While Florida Department of State officials claim that the Federal Candidate Oath of 99.021 (2) was mooted by the enactment of the Presidential Primary Selection Committee (PPSC) (Fl. Ss. 103.101), no constitutional qualifying is mandated to be done by statute, nor is done in practice, by the PPSC. There is only one exclusion in ss. 99.012(2) statute. It says that “ALL FEDERAL CANDIDATES SHALL TAKE” the oath, except for Federal judge candidates, who take a different oath. All other Federal Candidates were mandated by that statute to take the oath.  The Secretary of State’s ministerial duty had violated Florida statutes since the enactment of the PPSC, and when apprised of that fact by Florida voters, the legislature simply changed the law to support their criminal behavior. In further examining the law of statutory construction on which the claim was made that the oath was mooted by the PPSC, both statutes (99.021(2) and 103.101) could certainly exist side by side, and no duties done in one are not compatible with the other. As a matter of fact the Secretary sits non- voting chair of the PPSC. Therefore the statement that 99.021(2) is mooted by 103.101 was false, since there was no exclusionary language, and the two statutes could certainly exist side by side. The legislature then enacted the exclusionary language of 99.021(3) to mask their criminal behavior.

          Court holdings that say that the Secretary cannot make the determination of eligibility have morphed into “cannot do any ministerial duty relating to eligibility”. That is the reason that Obama is allowed to run for the office of President, but it also gives me unique standing by The Law of Equity Florida statutes, which are contained in 86.011- 86.101.

      The Florida legislature has used its power to make law to exclude and impinge the right, and duty of the Florida Electors from concluding whether a Presidential candidate is eligible for the office, in performance of our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The legislature has created a circle of exclusion, where one party is vouched for by the other, and no one is vouching for anything, so there is nothing to contest.

      “The question of the most common and undoubted jurisdiction of a court of equity, an agreement which the defendant sets as conclusive to bar all relief, and the plaintiff asks to be declared void, on grounds of the most clear and appropriate cognizance in equity, and not cognizant in a court of law. A false representation by one party, confided in by the other of the fact on which the whole cause depends, the execution of the agreement, and all proceedings under it, founded on the mistaken belief of the fact presented.”   Rhode Is. V. Mass. 37 US 657, 735

      The second part of the standing for Declaratory Judgment is the question of whether Obama’s eligibility is a judicial question, and not political. Obama’s lawyers in state eligibility contests so far have claimed it is a political question, that Obama is “popular” and that the voters have determined that he is eligible. The Florida case of Shevin v. Stone (1972) has held that eligibility is a judicial question, as has the Supreme Court.

     “It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicial cognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the election of a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has no power finally to dispose of them; and that its decision would be subject to review by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers, the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, the congress.

But the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases in law or equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and this is a case so arising, since the validity of the state law was drawn in question as repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity was sustained”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 23 (1892).

    Barack Obama’s campaign website, paid for by Obama for America has made the claim that Obama is an “American-born Citizen”.

    “President Obama is an American-born citizen. The authenticity of his short-form birth certificate was verified by the State of Hawaii as well as by FactCheck.org.”

http://www.attackwatch.com/attack-files/birth-certificate

     Previously, at www.fightthesmears.com (now scrubbed), Obama’s campaign had claimed to be a “native-born Citizen”, leaving one to wonder why the correct term of Presidential eligibility is not used in reference to a supposed “Constitutional scholar”. The creative wordsmith belies a desire to not outright lie, and the allowance of the Florida Legislature for him not to take the candidate oath allows him to continue that lie.

    The oath of Florida electors to protect and defend the US Constitution is a power given to them by the laws of Florida. Where there is an oath, there is power to carry out the thing sworn to.

     “It is a Universal axiom, that the grant of a principle power, ipso facto, includes in it all the minor subsidiary power necessary for the exercise of the main power, as incident to it.” 37 US 657, 705

     All it takes to stop Obama is to force just one major state Secretary of State to do his/her required ministerial duty, with discretion to Article 2 of the US Constitution. In Florida, that duty is the performance of the Federal Candidate Oath, and a requirement, by the Florida legislature, that the DNC issue a Nomination Certificate stating that their National Nominee is “constitutionally qualified” for the office they seek. Marbury v. Madison (5 US 37), and more recently Bush v. Gore (531 US 98), have held that ministerial duty may be imposed by mandate. It is that simple. At this point the courts need not even define “natural born Citizen”, or declare whether Obama is eligible or not. By mandamus, and allowed by the Declaratory Judgment statutes of Florida, the courts can mandate, by Supreme Court precedent, that the Secretary do ministerial duty with discretion to Article 2 (and the 12^th Amendment). If and when Obama, or the DNC makes that direct claim of constitutional eligibility, then the courts can be enjoined to determine who is a natural born Citizen, and whether Obama is one. If forced to state under oath, under penalty of fraud, that he is “Constitutionally eligible”, Obama probably will not run.  It is my opinion that cases have not been given standing because no claim of eligibility has been officially made by election officials or Obama himself, thus there is no point to contest and no relief to be granted. If forced by the Florida legislature to provide a Nomination Certificate stating that Obama is “Constitutionally eligible”, the DNC will probably not let him run for President. I have been trying to shake the citizenry awake for the last three years. Obama’s Kryptonite is making him state, under threat of fraud, that he is constitutionally eligible for the office of President.

    “In the Case of Olmstead, this Court expressed its opinion that if state legislatures may annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and the rights thereby acquired, the Constitution becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws, by its own tribunal. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all, and the people of every state must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the Union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves. 30 U. S. 5 Pet. 115, 30 U. S. 135, 37 US 657, 751.

Are you awake yet?

Fl Ballot Challenge Press Conference Preliminary Report, April 21, 2012

Fl Ballot Challenge Press Conference Preliminary Report, April 21, 2012

Supporting Information:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/04/press-conference-contains-background.html

The first press conference in the state for the Florida Ballot Challenge was held in Naples, Florida on Saturday, April 21^st 2012.

We showed up the rented hall at 12:15 for a 1 PM press conference.  Despite the fact that it was a rainy day, people were already lined up as the custodian opened the doors.  People quickly pitched in to set up the room.  The hall quickly filled up and we started on time.  Sam Sewell opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and introductory comments, including a humorous story that got belly laughs and applause.

Mike Voeltz gave us a report on his case to keep Obama off the ballot, which was filed in February 2012 against Obama and the Secretary of State, and then later amended by iconic public interest attorney Larry Klayman.  Mike was very professional and made a powerful presentation.  A local attorney in attendance who has been advising Sam was unaware that Mike is not an attorney and made arrangements to collaborate with Mike after the press conference.

The crowd enthusiastically received Jerry Collette’s report on his legal case filed against Obama and Florida Democratic Party officials in Pasco County. They especially applauded when he pointed out that the eligibility requirements, by implication, give every citizen the Constitutional right to not be governed by anyone who does not meet the Constitutional requirements of the office.

Jerry then announced that the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit was now available so that citizens could file their own cases in every county in Florida.  It was made clear that legal fees to file a case ran about $600 per case.  To cover the whole state, with a suit in each judicial district, we need $13,000.  Until funds are raised for willing, potential plaintiffs who may not be able to fund their own cases, it was suggested that they team up with other co-plaintiffs to share the expenses.  Two people from Collier and Polk Counties have already committed to becoming plaintiffs. We need contributions to cover those cases, at this point.

Larry Klayman’s encouraging participation by phone was very well received.  Larry emphasized that Florida is the “premier” location for ballot challenges, and is central for the 2012 election.  If Obama can be prevented from being on the ballot in Florida he cannot win the national election.  Larry also emphasized that money to fund the Florida Ballot Challenge is absolutely necessary for success. We need $10,000 within the next 10 days to move forward with this case, which could be pivotal to the entire nation.

Sam summarized the facts and history of the Obama fraud.  Then we opened the meeting to questions to the floor. The highly interested and well informed attendees asked significantly relevant questions for more than an hour. 

The press conference broke up at 2:30 PM and a dozen of the principal participants adjourned to Sam and Bunny Sewell’s home for debriefing and a strategy session that lasted until 5 PM.

It should be emphasized that no media outlets were in attendance, despite repeated news releases being sent to all media outlets in SW Florida. 

Videos are in the process of being edited and should be released soon.  Photos are attached.

Donate to Florida Ballot Challenges!

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/rLxEJ8qe/ConstitutionActionFund/

or send a check to:

Constitutional Action Fund

10202 Vanderbilt Drive

Naples, FL 34108

Are you interested in being a plaintiff?  We have developed a "Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit" that is useable in many states and is available at:

http://doityourselfballotchallenge.org/

Changing The Constitution to Legitimize Obama

double click for full screen

Media Provides First Aid for Obama's Boo Boos

The vast majority of “entitlements” provided by our government to narcotize the citizenry’s work ethic and sense of personal responsibility are as bogus as the Obama administration’s claim that it rescued the economy (well, perhaps all the president’s men did rescue the Chinese economy…). But I do believe that, as an American citizen, I am entitled to free and fair elections. Both political extremes seek to undermine that right, whether through super-PACs or hi-jinx. But the biggest threat to genuinely fair and honest elections is the naked prejudice of the establishment media.

Our media have, by and large, long tilted left. But even in the Bush years the slanting wasn’t as ham-handed as it is in the (election) Year of our Lord 2012. Almost four years into the Obama presidency, huge blank spots remain in the incumbent’s personal history (we knew more negative information—much of it invented—about Sarah Palin in four days than we’ve learned about the president in four years). Now, as the administration blunders from one mess to another, the establishment media hastily plasters its “Band-Aids of silence” over the worst goofs and gaffes.

You’ve heard about the Secret Service’s merrymaking in Colombia—but I’ll bet you haven’t heard about Obama’s blunder that had Latin America laughing out loud. Why? Because our media wouldn’t report it. Well, if you can read basic Spanish, log onto the sites of a few Latin American outlets that covered the Cartagena summit—I suggest starting with La Reforma, Mexico’s leading newspaper. The Latin Americans took the hooker affair in stride, but marveled at our president’s (unreported here) public gaffe.

In an effort to ingratiate himself with Argentina’s leftist president and leading nut-case bimbo, Cristina de Fernandez (who walked out of the conference, anyway), Obama insulted our British allies by referring to the Falkland Islands by the revisionist Argentine name, the “Malvinas.” Well, he meant to, anyway. But in his speech, the president—never strong on geography—confused the Malvinas with the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, half a world away. Our Southern neighbors thought it was a hoot. But you didn’t hear about it, of course. Obama’s a genius, according to our journalists’ sacred dogma, and Thou Shalt Not Mock.

Meanwhile, the president continues to kick the can down the road on every major foreign policy decision until the November voting is over. Re-election is more important to this man than is Israel’s survival. The slaughter in Syria? Hey, Syria doesn’t bring a single electoral vote to the table. Afghanistan? Just keep things quiet, General. Pakistan? Those guys are our good buddies. Iran. Hey, dudes, let’s talk! (Again.) China? Shut up and eat your fortune cookie. American jobs lost to foreign cut-throats and trade cheats? Those rednecks would’ve voted Republican, anyway. High gas prices? Uh…uh…blame somebody. Quick!

Obama gets a (press) pass on every count.

Of course, the ugliest foreign-policy incident involving a US president in my lifetime occurred just a few weeks ago, when our president, unaware that his microphone was on, essentially told Russia’s president “Hey, I’ve got to fool the American people until November, but, after that, I can give you whatever you want.” Obama told Medvedev that he “needed time” and would have “more flexibility” after the election. Ladies and gentleman, it borders on treason when our president tells a foreign leader that he needs to cut a deal behind the back of our country’s citizens.

The media couldn’t cover this one up entirely, since it first leaked out overseas, but, boy, did they put that story away as fast as they could.

Really. Think about it. Our president can’t trust you, the voter, with his plans for nuclear disarmament, strategic defenses and the like. But he can make secret promises to Moscow. This was—and remains—a breathtaking betrayal. But the story’s as dead as Dick Whittington’s cat. (And if you want to worry about a single issue in another Obama administration, worry about his doctrinaire-leftist hatred of our nuclear arsenal—the only thing that has prevented a Third World War for almost seven decades.

And, of course, our economy’s in terrific shape. Any little problems that remain are Bush’s fault (Remember that guy? The one our media and our current president agree was responsible for the Holocaust, the Black Death and the fall of the Roman Empire?). The party line is that our president is doing the best he can. He’s there for you, America. He feels it when your business is driven into bankruptcy and your home is foreclosed upon. He’ll even give you food stamps (which, come on, are better than jobs, anyway…). Several trillion dollars thrown away and four years to fix things…and it’s still all Bush’s fault, from Wall Street to the streets of Kabul.

Obama is the least-manly president we’ve ever had, unable to admit to any mistakes of any kind. The guy makes Woodrow Wilson look like Conan the Barbarian. And Hamlet made more decisions in Act I than Obama’s made in four years. He stalls like an old Fiat and lies like a Nigerian scammer. But he remains the media’s hero. And our media will pull out every stop and employ every trick to insure his re-election.

Meanwhile, the leading opposition candidate—a clean-living, America-loving family man who prospered in the private sector—is depicted as feckless, wishy-washy, even duplicitous. The most-influential Washington department isn’t Defense or State or Treasury. It’s our media’s informal Ministry of Propaganda.

Obama isn’t evil. He’s just a shiny mediocrity incapable of serious leadership in troubled times. He surrounded himself with academics, not do-ers. Inevitably, we got theories, not results. This isn’t hard to understand. Unless you’re a journalist with left-of-Venus stars stuck in your eyes.

As a “conservative for conservation,” I’m infuriated by the White House corruption behind the Solyndra affair—which discredited serious alternative energy efforts. You’d think our left-leaning media would still be all over that scandal, at least. But nope. “Solyndra? What’s that, some dietary supplement? Next topic, please.”

What do the wretched-excess GSA scandal and the Secret Service’s hooker jamboree in Colombia have in common? They’re manifestations of a morally lax, self-absorbed, irresponsible administration in which any lie can be told with the knowledge that most of the media will fall in line behind it. And this president will never be blamed for anything.

The cult of personality has gone so far I sometimes feel that I’m living in North Korea. (Okay, that’s an exaggeration—but I’ve never seen a cult of personality so powerful here, not even that of JFK).

As far as the establishment media’s concerned, the 2012 election is already over. They just haven’t reported it to you yet.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of the new bestseller, Cain at Gettysburg.

Incredible ad by the Catholic church

WOW, I don't recall EVER seeing a politically-inspired ad like this put forth by Catholics in the US. 

DOUBLE CLICK VIDEO FOR FULL SCREEN

Bishop Says Obama on Hitlerian Path

Bishop Says Obama on Hitlerian Path

Cliff Kincaid — April 18, 2012         
        

Comparing Obama to Hitler is something that the liberal/left used to blame on the Tea Party. However, posters and signs showing Obama with a Hitler moustache were inevitably traced to followers of Lyndon LaRouche. They sometimes tried to portray themselves as conservatives, but in reality LaRouche is a former Marxist who ran for president as a Democrat. They like to cause deliberate political confusion.
Now that an educated Catholic Bishop with knowledge of history and a commitment to religious freedom has made the comparison, however, the national media cannot decide on how to respond.
When I saw the headline, “Bishop Compares Obama Policies to Hitler, Stalin,” over an article on Newsmax.com, the conservative website, I thought at first it must be an error or exaggeration. Was a Catholic Bishop actually being this harsh? I have reported on the reaction of the Catholic Church to the Obama Administration’s birth control mandate affecting religious institutions. My local priest called it evil and demonic and has suggested the church will be persecuted and ministers jailed for resisting the federal onslaught. But comparing the President personally to Hitler and Stalin?
The Newsmax headline about the charge concerned a story from LifeSiteNews.com. The Daily Caller titled it: “Illinois Bishop: Obama ‘intent on following a similar path’ as Hitler, Stalin.”
I went to the www.LifeSiteNews.com and the headline over its story was only slightly different: “Obama taking ‘similar path’ as Hitler and Stalin: Illinois bishop.” The question then became—were these stories somehow exaggerating what the Catholic Bishop said?
The Catholic Post ran the full text of the homily of Bishop Daniel R. Jenky at the Mass during the April 14 “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith” in Peoria. The homily is also available on podcast. The headlines did indeed capture the essence of what he said. The Bishop goes by the title “Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., D.D.” CSC stands for the Congregation of the Holy Cross, the order that runs Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. D.D. stands for Doctor of Divinity. He is an educated man. His education includes:

• College: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
• Novitiate: Holy Cross Fathers’ Novitiate, Bennington, Vermont.
• Seminary: Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana
• Theology: Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana

Taking aim at Obama, Hollywood and the media, the Bishop said:

“For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But think about it. The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire.
“The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism.
“And in the power of the resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.
“The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS [Health and Human Services], and of the current majority of the federal Senate.” (Applause)

It turns out that the Bishop was just getting warmed up.
He went on:

“Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.
“In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his ‘Kulturkampf,’ a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.
“Clemenceau, nicknamed ‘the priest eater,’ tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.
“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
“In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, President Obama—with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”
“This fall,” said Bishop Jenky, “every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries—only excepting our church buildings—could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the instrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.”

Whether you agree or disagree, these were extraordinary comments and certainly worthy of national media attention. But the story remains mostly in the conservative media.
The Daily Caller noted, “Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York—considered the most powerful Roman Catholic cleric in the U.S.—has also had harsh words for the HHS mandate, charging that the administration is attempting to divide the Catholic Church.”
But charging that Obama is acting like Hitler or Stalin goes far beyond Dolan’s observation.
One group already taking note is the Soros-funded Think Progress, which said that Jenky’s homily “appears better suited to an episode of the Glenn Beck Show than to a celebration of religious faith.” According to Ian Millhiser, a Senior Constitutional Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Obama merely “wants all working women to have access to contraception, regardless of whether they work for a religious employer.” In fact, Obama wants to force religious employers to provide birth control pills and abortion drugs in violation of their religious beliefs.
This is a story that just won’t go away. And it has the potential to alert the public, Catholic and non-Catholic, to the grave constitutional crisis we find ourselves in.
The notion of Obama as an “extreme secularist,” if not a dictator wannabe, is widely shared within the Catholic Church. A Priest recently told me that the Catholic Bishops, who usually divide into liberal and conservative factions, are united against Obama in this controversy.
He said Obama is viewed as someone who believes in freedom of worship, not freedom of religion, an important distinction that Jenky was alluding to. In other words, Obama believes Christians should be free to worship within the confines of their church, but that when they exercise their freedom of religion in public life, they must conform to the secular dictates of the federal government. In this context, however, the ability to exercise freedom of religion, as the Constitution means it, becomes essentially meaningless.
It will be interesting to see whether the national media cover these sensational charges in a fair and balanced manner. Or will “the malice of the media,” to use the Bishop’s words, take over?
If Mitt Romney is correct that the media “are inclined” to do Obama’s bidding, then the Bishop can expect to be a major target in the near future.