(Before the slower ones read and react to this, it’s sarcasm so don’t flip
President Obama seems to have lost his magic touch with the American people. They used to cheer anytime air passed over his vocal chords. Now, they change the channel. Martha’s Vineyard vacationers once purchased shirts boasting “I Vacationed with Obama.” Now, a hopey-changey picture of George W. Bush saying “Miss me yet?” is the top selling shirt at the M.V. Heck, he used to even be able to scold them for their selfish, excessive ways. Now, they get mad anytime he and his wife take more than five summer vacations. It sure isn’t as much fun being Obama as it was just two short years ago.

However, there’s always a place willing to applaud him for being who he is. Somewhere where Michelle Obama won’t get criticized for saying that America is a downright mean country.  A place where even the Obama’s former family minister Jeremiah Wright doesn’t have to have excuses made for him because they too know that America’s chickens have come home…to roost. That magical place is the United Nations – the Disney Land for Despotic, Tyrannical Governments.

Sure, the UN may have a few bad apples that perform genocide on their own country and seem a little preoccupied with ensuring Israel is wiped off of the face of the earth. Yes, it’s a group that puts nations on their Human Rights Council that routinely assassinate political dissidents or at least lock them up for life and torture them. Sure, a few of the Human Rights Council members turn a blind eye to murderous rampages among different factions in their own nations. But, hey, is the US really better than any of them? (No, I really did actually think we were.)

 According to the Obama administration, we aren’t much better than North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or China. The Washington Times reported that the administration filed a report with the farcical UN Human Rights Council claiming that the US “discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and those who do not speak English.” It is well known that Iran does have the best handicapped parking spots in the entire world. Unfortunately, you’re usually handicapped because you disagreed with the ruling Imams. The administration also made it a point to describe the horrible conditions Muslims are forced to live in within the United States. I can only imagine the hell Islamic fundamentalists must go through in the US where a man can’t even kill his daughter because she disgraced the family by getting raped. How do they survive in a country where groups show up to aid them in building a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims killed over 3,000 innocent Americans? The U.S. theocracy must be torture on them…well, maybe not exactly like the torture Muslims endure at the hands of brutal regimes like Iran, you know, the real torture, but living in the US still has to at least be really, really annoying.

 The Washington Times did highlight that the administration’s report wasn’t all doom and gloom. It stated, “our expectation thereof is justified by the proven ability of our system of government to deliver the progress our people demand and deserve.” The Times article explained that for every grievance, there was a federal government, Obama-crafted solution such as health care, housing, or nutrition. (Yes, our nation is pointing out a grievance because we have poor nutrition which is leading to high obesity levels. I wonder how that complaint went over to countries facing famines and rampant hunger.)

 As the Times concluded, they disagreed with the administration’s statement on the report that just because the US filed a report, it didn’t mean they were equating the US with real human rights violators. I’m as skeptical as the Times about that claim. President Obama has just given every two-bit dictator thug all the reason they need to reject anything we ask them to do. Now, the despots of the world have something tangible as evidence that the US is the oppressor-in-chief.

Unfortunately, we brought this on ourselves. When we first accepted President Obama’s pitches of woo toward us, we established a standard level of adulation that he needed from us. Since the magic has started dying and his poll numbers are getting ready to hit into the thirties, he has to go somewhere that hasn’t lost that lovin’ feeling. What better way to make new friends at the UN than by ripping on the US? You definitely can’t spell unfaithful without UN.

 (Seriously, all kidding aside, who does President Obama think he is to equate the US with the world’s worst genocidal thugs? The US has never complied with the UN Human Rights Council because it’s a complete farce. Some of the worst offenders sit on the board judging the rest of the world. The United States should never be compared to Iran or any other bloodthirsty regime around the world. This is completely reprehensible and a man of moral character would relieve himself of office. Remember this Human Rights report when you go to vote in November. If you like seeing your own government indicting you as a bigot, then by all means keep voting Democrat and you can expect to receive future versions of this song and dance. However, if you believe that the US is the answer to human rights violations around the world and not the cause, vote Republican to get all of these leftist creeps out of public office.)

Today’s Wall Street Journal contains a piece by Fouad Ajami about President Obama’s sudden fall from grace. I don’t think I’ve seen it ever explained more concisely and accurately than Mr. Fouad. Read it for yourself…

(link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421363005578460.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion)

By FOUAD AJAMI

Not long ago Barack Obama, for those who were spellbound by him, had the stylishness of JFK and the historic mission of FDR riding to the nation’s rescue. Now it is to Lyndon B. Johnson’s unhappy presidency that Democratic strategist Robert Shrum compares the stewardship of Mr. Obama. Johnson, wrote Mr. Shrum in the Week magazine last month, never “sustained an emotional link with the American people” and chose to escalate a war that “forced his abdication as president.”

A broken link with the public, and a war in Afghanistan he neither embraces and sells to his party nor abandons—this is a time of puzzlement for President Obama. His fall from political grace has been as swift as his rise a handful of years ago. He had been hot political property in 2006 and, of course, in 2008. But now he will campaign for his party’s 2010 candidates from afar, holding fund raisers but not hitting the campaign trail in most of the contested races. Those mass rallies of Obama frenzy are surely of the past.

The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The “progressives” want to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still. But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We’re not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned. There is deep concern, to be sure. But the Obama strategy has lost the consent of the governed.

Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government.

He pronounced on the American condition with stark, unalloyed confidence. He had little if any regard for precedents. He could be forgiven the thought that America’s faith in economic freedom had given way and that he had the popular writ to move the nation toward a super-regulated command economy. An “economic emergency” was upon us, and this would be the New New Deal.

There was no hesitation in the monumental changes Mr. Obama had in mind. The logic was Jacobin, the authority deriving from a perceived mandate to recast time-honored practices. It was veritably rule by emergency decrees. If public opinion displayed no enthusiasm for the overhaul of the nation’s health-care system, the administration would push on. The public would adjust in due time.

The nation may be ill at ease with an immigration reform bill that would provide some 12 million illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship, but the administration would still insist on the primacy of its own judgment. It would take Arizona to court, even though the public let it be known that it understood Arizona’s immigration law as an expression of that state’s frustration with the federal government’s abdication of its responsibility over border security.

It was clear as daylight that there was a built-in contradiction between opening the citizenship rolls to a vast flood of new petitioners and a political economy of redistribution favored by the Obama administration. The choice was stark: You could either “spread the wealth around” or open the gates for legalizing millions of immigrants of lower skills. You could not do both.

It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of “malaise” at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama’s. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation’s faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality.

Big as Reagan’s mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation’s treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences.

To be sure, Reagan faltered midway through his second term—the arms-for-hostages trade, the Iran-Contra affair, nearly wrecked his presidency. But he recovered, the nation rallied around him and carried him across the finish line, his bond with the electorate deep and true. He had two years left of his stewardship, and his political recovery was so miraculous that he, and his first mate, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, would seal the nation’s victory in the Cold War.

There is little evidence that the Obama presidency could yet find new vindication, another lease on life. Mr. Obama will mark time, but henceforth he will not define the national agenda. He will not be the repository of its hopes and sentiments. The ambition that his would be a “transformational” presidency—he rightly described Reagan’s stewardship in these terms—is for naught.

There remains the fact of his biography, a man’s journey. Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a “tingling sensation” when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office. Nor does Mr. Obama have the suppleness of Bill Clinton, who rose out of the debris of his first two years in the presidency, dusted himself off, walked away from his spouse’s radical attempt to remake the country’s health-delivery system, and moved to the political center.

It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can’t be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.

Mr. Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The first version I heard today of the new economic numbers came from President Obama. Speaking before a small business, the president praised the jobs number that came out today as yet another signal that the economy has turned the corner and is back to growing. Obama told the crowd that the nation’s private sector actually added jobs for the third straight month and the increased job losses largely stem from the census work winding down and shedding those temporary workers. With any speech Obama delivers, there are two stories – one that the president says and the truth. As the president gets further into what we can only hope will be his only term in office, the Obama version of a story diverts wider and wider from the truth. Today’s summary of the economic numbers is just another example. (It’s funny how the president doesn’t mention census jobs when they artificially inflate job creation totals but he’s eager to point to them out when they negatively skew the numbers.)

Despite President Obama’s claims that the recovery is underway, the actual numbers paint a much bleaker picture. Last month, the economy shed 131,000 jobs. The president was correct that many jobs are disappearing because the census is winding down and the jobs report gives the appearance that the private sector added 71,000. The government also revised June’s numbers to show that 221,000 jobs were lost instead of the 125,000 previously reported. However, taking a closer look at the numbers erases any hint of a steadily improving job market.

Even if the 71,000 private sector jobs added was the whole story, the situation would be bad enough because it’s not even enough to make a dent in the unemployment rate. However, there’s another disturbing trend that President Obama conveniently left out which is the only reason unemployment didn’t rise above the 9.5% where it has hovered for several months. As the months continue to pass, the chronically unemployed have become so hopeless in their job search that they have resigned themselves to actually drop out of the job search which shrinks the official workforce which is used to calculate unemployment. The true unemployment rate actually rises near 15% once the number of discouraged workers who are no longer looking for jobs is factored in.

Today’s numbers only highlight the Obama administration’s ineptness on handling the economy. A “stimulus” package carrying an over $1 trillion price tag once interest is factored in was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% and add over a million jobs within a year of its enactment has only stimulated the economic decline.

It’s one thing to waste tax payer money. However, it’s completely insulting when the president tells us that the economic sun is starting to shine when the true numbers show that the American economy is still on life support.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the significance of Tuesday’s vote where 71% of Missouri voters approved a state law that would exempt them from ObamaCare’s mandate requiring every American to purchase federally-approved health insurance. In true elitist fashion, Gibbs, the mouthpiece of the banana republic administration currently occupying the federal government gave a simple one-word answer; “Nothing.” 

Unfortunately, this can’t really be too surprising since this administration has proven time and time again that it doesn’t regard anyone’s opinion other than their own as legitimate.

There has never been an administration this content to rule against the will of the people. Neither the president nor the Democrat leaders in Congress believe that we are smart enough to make our own decisions and they won’t hesitate for a second to use every bit of their legitimate and self-created power to thrust their radical agenda on the nation. November can’t come soon enough.

I found this on World Net Daily. I’ll come back to revisit this but it’s just too creepy to leave out. Any wonder why Obama has self-adulation problems?

Is this the “word” Nancy Pelosi claimed we needed to insert into public policy? (Actually, it’s hard to tell exactly what Pelosi was saying in that awkward bumbling exchange where she revealed just how long it has been since she actually paid attention in Mass – once again, I’ll have to return to this to fill in anyone who isn’t familiar with the reference. If you can’t wait, just Google Pelosi’s favorite word or visit Glenn Beck’s site because he’s been hammering her on this.)

Opponents of ObamaCare witnessed another brutal attack by one of B. Hussein Obama’s supporters. The Los Angeles Times reported today that a 65-year-old man had his pinky finger bitten off by a member of a group supporting ObamaCare at an event organized by MoveOn.org. (Apparently, George Soros-funded groups don’t qualify as “Astroturf.”)

Last night, at a rally called the “We Can’t Afford to Wait Vigil” organized by the ultra-liberal MoveOn.org, an unidentified man took issue with an elderly counter-demonstrator. A fight ensued at which point the MoveOn.org protestor bit the little finger off of the 65-year-old opponent to ObamaCare.

The injured man was taken to a hospital and the assailant is still at large after fleeing the scene.

Yes, every day it becomes more obvious that we must watch out for the “rightwing domestic terrorists,” as a memo emailed from Obama’s Organizing for America website described opponents to the president’s health care proposals. “Rightwing terrorist” Kenneth Gladney was hospitalized after a brutal beating issued by members of the pro-Obama SEIU labor union outside of a town hall meeting hosted by Democrat Russ Carnahan. Gladney’s offense? According to eyewitnesses, the SEIU members took issue with the fact that Gladney was a black conservative. Now, Obama’s henchmen bit the little finger off of another “rightwing domestic terrorist.” Thank goodness, the Department of Homeland Security issued that report warning about “rightwing extremists.” Those evil rightwingers seem to be bleeding all over everyone after being assaulted by the president’s followers.

Although it shouldn’t come as a surprise, it does continue to shed light on the extremely favorable media coverage President Obama receives from his lap-dogs in the press. This week, the nonprofit group League of American Voters submitted a commercial to run on all of the major networks. The ad’s message focuses on the fact that the current health care proposals before Congress will lead to rationing of health care and will disproportionately “decimate the quality of health care for seniors.” Bob Adams, executive director of League of American Voters, said that the advertisement is already running on local network affiliates in several states. CBS has agreed to air the commercial during national network programming and talks are currently underway with FOX. However, both ABC and NBC are refusing to run the commercial. NBC is reportedly questioning some of the facts and ABC rejects it for being too “partisan.”

ABC and NBC won't dare offend the president by running anti-ObamaCare commercial.

None of this should surprise anyone. ABC was the network that turned over a whole day’s programming to the White House for B. Hussein Obama to push his health care proposals. The network refused to give any time to any of the president’s opponents to counter the numerous false claims the president made throughout the day. The other network, NBC, might as well be run from the White House every day. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, NBC’s parent company, has advised the president on an array of topics including “renewable energy.” GE happens to be the largest manufacturer of wind turbines and has developed products to be used in national carbon trading schemes. Without Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, these products would be worthless. Immelt has also been appointed by the Obama administration to sit on the New York Federal Reserve Board. On any given night, MSNBC can be found singing the praises of B. Hussein Obama and getting thrills up their legs at the sound of the president’s voice while simultaneously demonizing anyone who dares question him.

It’s obvious that journalism is officially dead, especially at ABC and NBC. They’re partisan motives are completely transparent and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they are refusing to run an ad critical of Obama’s health care plans. These two networks shouldn’t be surprised that as Obama’s public approval ratings tank, so do their ratings.

Democrat Charlie Rangel who chairs committee that writes tax code, "forgot" half of his assest in his official financial disclosure forms.

Democrat Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which writes the US federal tax code, released an amended financial disclosure for 2007. The amended disclosure included over $500,000 worth of assets in his net worth that he claims to have “forgot” in filing the original version. Richard Rubin and Alex Knott reported on the assets that slipped Rangel’s mind in an article for Congressional Quarterly. According to Rubin and Knott, Rangel couldn’t remember that he had a checking account at the Congressional Federal Credit Union worth at least $250,000, an investment account holding at least $250,000, land in southern New Jersey and stock in PepsiCo and fast-food chain owner Yum! Brands. (Honestly, who could keep up with minute details such as these. Who among us has never forgot about that little bit of land we own in southern New Jersey?) All of these assets were omitted from the original net worth statement Rangel filled out by hand and submitted in May of 2008.

The original report showed Rangel’s net worth was in the range of $516,015 to $1,316,000. The amended report moved his net worth to at least $1,028,024 to as much as $2,495,000. Once again, who hasn’t “forgotten” about half of their assets at one time or another?

Rangel also amended his statement of investment income for 2007. His original statement, once again filled out by hand, said the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman received between $6,511 and $17,900. The amended statement reports investment income in the range of $45,423 to $134,700. Once again, Rangel’s original report accounted for less than half of his real assets and that’s considering income remained in the very lowest amount of the range provided.

We have been waiting for quite awhile to see Rangel’s restated disclosures. The House is supposed to be investigating him for earlier revelations that he did not report on his taxes $75,000 in income from a rental property he owns in Central America and inconsistencies regarding his rent-controlled apartments in New York. Something tells me that we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for Pelosi to order the investigation, much less waiting for him to receive any punishment.

It is outrageous that Rangel remains in his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee whose primary responsibility is writing the nation’s tax code. Rangel has already been caught cheating on his taxes and now he’s been caught red-handed hiding half of his assets on his financial disclosure statements. (Gee, more problems of transparency in the “Age of Obama” coming out of Nancy Pelosi’s Congress which she promised would be the “most ethical in history” to end the “culture of corruption under the Republicans.) How much would anyone like to bet that the restated assets also weren’t fully disclosed on his tax forms either?

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who is now in charge of the IRS was the first in a long line of tax cheats nominated by Obama.

So currently, we have Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a chronic tax cheat, in charge of the IRS. Now, it’s further confirmed that the man who oversees writing of the nation’s tax code also cheated on his taxes while lying to the American public. Yet, it seems that the top Democrats are completely copasetic with everything. Not only do Democrats condone cheating on taxes, they tax evaders to positions controlling the enforcement and creation of the tax code. Our vice president insisted that paying higher taxes is “patriotic” and B. Hussein Obama explained that everyone is going to have to “have some skin in the game” to turn the economy around. Perhaps if Democrats started paying their taxes, others wouldn’t have to kick in so much more of their own skin into the Democrats’ game. This is the “change we can believe in?”

This week, American Thinker published a piece by Michael Lisle titled, “Passing the Smell Test.” In the article, Lisle discusses the Obama administration’s recent decision to invest $2 billion of taxpayer dollars to fund offshore oil drilling in Brazil. Apparently, the president failed to explain to Brazil that drilling for oil is futile because it won’t solve any energy problems. At least that’s what he keeps telling Americans who want the government to pursue every source of domestic US oil supplies including drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), oil shale in Colorado, and increased offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the outer-continental shelf off of California’s coast. B. Hussein Obama responds to these requests with the classic liberal logic that the US uses 25% of annual global oil production and only has 3% of world reserves so drilling won’t make a dent in the amount of oil the US imports. However, this logic is completely irrational and flawed. The entire world doesn’t use 3% of world oil reserves every year. If this were the case, the world would run out of oil in the next few decades. It is estimated that the oil available in the oil shale in Colorado along with the available oil in the outer-continental shelf each contain reserves the size of Saudi Arabia – a country that no one believes is wasting their time and resources drilling for every drop of available oil within their borders. Even the most alarmist warnings give the world oil supplies at least another century before any threat of running out. Therefore, 3% of world oil reserves would fuel the US for a very significant timeframe while viable alternatives are researched and developed. So while the president uses dubious logic to prevent the US from increasing domestic oil production, he has no problem sending taxpayer dollars to Brazil for that purpose. As if this isn’t outrageous enough, there’s even more to this story.

Major liberal financier George Soros seems to be reaping a return on his investment in Democrat politicians.

The key beneficiary of the $2 billion giveaway is Brazilian oil company Petrobras. As Bloomberg reported, billionaire and large Democrat financier, George Soros, acquired over $800 million in Petrobras stock during the second quarter of 2008. He ended up selling 22 million shares and acquiring 5.8 million shares of dividend-paying preferred stock. Lisle quotes Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who asked, “Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ (sic) offshore operations? Hmmmmmmm.” As Lisle points out, there is no “smoking gun” but the coincidence is very alarming. Since the beginnings of the Bush administration, Soros has held huge influence on Democrat politicians through very large campaign contributions and expensive issue-oriented campaigns through groups like MoveOn.org which was founded by Soros. Petrobras is the largest holding in Soros’ hedge fund and he will very clearly benefit from B. Hussein Obama’s cash injection into their operations.

After eight years of accusations that the Bush administration was abusing their power to help friends in big oil, it shows the level of hypocrisy on those on the left who constantly leveled those charges. Reports have also surfaced that top Obama advisor, David Axelrod, is scheduled to receive millions of dollars in payments from his consulting firm he established. The firm’s largest clients are pharmaceutical companies and other health care industry members who are concerned about the administration’s plans for health care reform. Axelrod left the firm after Obama’s election victory, leaving his son in charge. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that Axelrod’s son can offer the firm’s clients something no other firm can – direct access to the ears of White House officials. While Bush and Halliburton are gone, liberals are dropping their accusations of big business in bed with big government. It looks like they dropped their complaints a little too soon.

Speaking to rabbis today on a conference call to bolster support of his health care plans, President Obama explained, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” Politico pointed out that the statement was a quote from the Rosh Hashanah prayer “that says that in the holiday period, it is decided “who shall live and who shall die.”” So, is B. Hussein Obama saying that his health care plans will take an active role in individuals’ decisions about whether to fight illness or end the fight through signing up for hospice or even euthanasia in states such as Oregon where state health care offers to pay for legalized assisted suicide after expensive treatments are denied to patients based on the state’s cost efficiency equations specifically designed to ration health care resources?

On the same conference call, Obama said that he needs religious leaders help on selling health care reform because there are a lot of people “bearing false witness” to his proposals. Aside from the fact that critics’ main points are true concerning the effects of “reform” on already skyrocketing budget deficits, the potential for his plans to fund abortions barring the addition of an amendment similar to a Hyde Amendment that would outright ban federally-funded abortions, mandatory end of life counseling, and the inevitable collapse of the private insurance industry caused by the creation of Obama’s public option, it’s pretty creepy that the president is now implying that any opposition to his health care agenda is on the same level as blasphemy. Obama also explained to the rabbis that as a society, we are not living up to our obligations to “be our brother and sister’s keeper.” Apparently, the president never studied the story of Cain and Abel to learn that he completely misquoted and misapplied his reference to the Old Testament story. As pointed out on American Spectator, in the bible story, after Cain murders his brother and hides his body, God asks him about Abel’s whereabouts. Cain responds to God’s question by pleading ignorance asking, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Obama seems to believe that the reference to “brother’s keeper” was a commandment from God. Perhaps Obama’s long-time minister Jeremiah Wright never got around to squeezing in actual stories from the Bible in between his racist, anti-Semitic rants. Through trying to show his religious credentials, Obama reveals his subpar level of understanding of the subject.

Liberals pointed to every reference of religion from George W. Bush as evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to force “Christian law” onto the United States. None of Bush’s accusers were ever able to point to a nation that has “Christian law” but that didn’t stop them from pointing to evangelical Christians as more of a threat to national security than jihadist Muslims. These same people don’t seem too concerned with Obama’s sudden obsession with religion. It’s insulting that secular progressives such as B. Hussein Obama have no problem insulting religious faithful during election years in order to attract votes from their far-left base but as soon as they hit a bump in enacting their agenda, they work to patronize religious leaders and their congregations to try to convince them to support their causes. Faithful followers of the Judeo-Christian faiths should stand opposed to a government plan that would marginalize the lives of the very young and the very old which is exactly what Obama’s plans are designed to do.