Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views. While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers. But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it. I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation. This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died." And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo. I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic. I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle. But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same. But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people. But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God. Transcript courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.
Dr. John Rabins is the man I tell you about during my show. I trust my eyecare to him and his wonderful staff. I am currently wearing Hi-Def "HOYA" lens in a CHARMANT titanium perfection frame. The lens are the very best. My vision is the best in my life. They also carry 7eye, Bollé, Barracuda Swim Goggles,Rec Specs,Vera Wang,KLiiK,and L'Amy. The photos are from The 4th Annual Cumulus Health Fair. I am picture with Dr. Rabins, and his chief optician, Linda. You can contact them at Optom-Eyes, 3585 Van Teylingen Drive, Suite B,Colorado Springs, CO 80917
Thursday, February 23, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) - The president just couldn't say no: Mick Jagger held out a mic almost by way of command, and soon Barack Obama was belting out the blues with the best of them. The East Room of the White House was transformed into an intimate blues club on Tuesday night for a concert featuring blues all-stars of the past, present and future - and the president himself. The surprise performance by Obama came at the end of the playlist when the blues ensemble was singing "Sweet Home Chicago," the blues anthem of Obama's home town. Buddy Guy prodded the president, saying he'd heard that the president sang part of an Al Green tune recently, and adding, "You gotta keep it up." Then Jagger handed over the mic, and Obama seemed compelled to comply. "Come on, baby don't you want to go," the president sang out twice, handing off the mic to B.B. King momentarily, and then taking it back to tack on "Sweet Home Chicago" at the end. That was how Obama ended the night.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
You hear it right. I DID say I would drive a hybrid. I was NOT kidding. Of course, there IS a catch. The hybrid I would pick is a Porsche 918. Here is a photo of the Porsche 924 I owned when I was an attorney, and the model I would pick now. Oh, there is the matter of cost... Porsche 918 hybrid: Order now for $845,000
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Pro Team Roofing & Restoration Receives 2011 Best of Colorado Springs Award U.S. Commerce Association’s Award Plaque Honors the Achievement NEW YORK, NY, December 8, 2011 -- Pro Team Roofing & Restoration has been selected for the 2011 Best of Colorado Springs Award in the Roofing Contractors category by the U.S. Commerce Association (USCA). The USCA "Best of Local Business" Award Program recognizes outstanding local businesses throughout the country. Each year, the USCA identifies companies that they believe have achieved exceptional marketing success in their local community and business category. These are local companies that enhance the positive image of small business through service to their customers and community. Various sources of information were gathered and analyzed to choose the winners in each category. The 2011 USCA Award Program focuses on quality, not quantity. Winners are determined based on the information gathered both internally by the USCA and data provided by third parties. About U.S. Commerce Association (USCA) U.S. Commerce Association (USCA) is a New York City based organization funded by local businesses operating in towns, large and small, across America. The purpose of USCA is to promote local business through public relations, marketing and advertising. The USCA was established to recognize the best of local businesses in their community. Our organization works exclusively with local business owners, trade groups, professional associations, chambers of commerce and other business advertising and marketing groups. Our mission is to be an advocate for small and medium size businesses and business entrepreneurs across America. SOURCE: U.S. Commerce Association
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
INTRODUCTION Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution demands that every president of the United States must be a “natural-born citizen. As evidenced by the veil of secrecy and cover-up surrounding the incumbent president’s official records of birth, as well as other incriminating documents, which he fails to make public and available to the American people, it is imperative that the vetting process include a thorough vetting as to the eligibility of all the presidential candidates, irrespective of political party. Accordingly, the following resolution is submitted for consideration and adoption by the Colorado Republican Party and is referred to in short as the “Constitutional Eligibility” resolution, which reads in bold as follows. CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY RESOLUTION In order to ensure that candidates are eligible to be President of the United States of America under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires a candidate to be a natural-born citizen, be it hereby known that each candidate will publicly disclose official hard copies of their birth certificate, school transcripts, and passports for thorough examination and allow verification of their SSANs to ensure no irregularities, such as having a SSAN from a state in which they’ve never lived. All candidates’ documents will be subject to professional analyses by forensic and graphics experts to ensure that they are, in deed, valid official documents of record and not forgeries. RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION Military personnel & others are required to show proof of citizenship in order to get a job. Should we expect anything less from those who are applying for the most important job in the country? Just like any other market or job application, we need to know what and who we are getting before we buy or hire. We, the electorate are supposed to be the boss in a free, Constitutional Republic; ergo, we should be as thorough as we can be to ensure that we are getting the best candidate (employee), who is both eligible and qualified for the office. I believe if this is pushed within the Republican Party it will spread beyond the party. All other political parties will be forced to follow suit, including the Democrat party, if they want the support of informed and thoughtful voters. I doubt that anyone would be able to successfully argue against a thorough vetting process, which allows for maximum disclosure of pertinent information regarding a candidate’s eligibility and qualifications. That would be tantamount to suggesting that we shop blindly in the grocery store and randomly pick items off the shelves. As Republican delegates, we should do our best to ensure that each candidate is fully vetted and that official, hard copies of pertinent documents regarding each candidate’s eligibility are thoroughly examined. It’s very important to keep hammering away on this subject, because, as we have seen, it gets lost within the party machinery and rush to get the product to market (candidate on campaign trail and in office). There’s an old saying within computer programming: “Garbage in, garbage out.” And, we’ve seen enough garbage out in previous elections, particularly the 2008 Presidential election with the election of Barack Obama (BO), and didn’t that stink. Dare we continue to make the same mistakes and expect a different outcome? Despite some Republican party functionaries’ reluctance to address the issue of thorough vetting of eligibility and forcing the issue in Congress and elsewhere, we should insist that they stop reneging on their responsibility by their remaining silent and/or chastising those who believe that the Constitution is supreme and trumps political party and/or ideology. Too many times we’ve heard someone tell us that we have more important issues before us and that we should focus on them instead. Talk about shortsighted thinking. What could be more important than the Constitution in a free, Constitutional Republic? Jobs, National Defense, etc., are of little value in the end, if we do not uphold and defend our Constitution. Those who try to bend, twist, or ignore it are only setting up more problems. We can ill afford to allow the continuance of all the chipping away of the Constitution, piece by piece for party or candidate convenience and career. This is how we got into the present mess which we’re in today, the idea that the little things don’t matter and that we can just sweep them aside out of political cowardness (PC) and/or schemes of having a favorite candidate run for a particular office down the road. GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO STAY ON OFFENSE AND GO FOR THE JUGULAR Wars are not won by pussy-footing around and being on the defense and expecting the enemy to relinquish his advance and yield to your cause. It is won by attacking the enemy on all fronts and going for the jugular to win. Either you believe in your cause and fight with all your might for victory or you live under the yoke of your enemy. It’s that simple. And, don’t think for one moment that we aren’t engaged in a war right now here in our country, fighting for our individual freedom and rights and whether we are to remain a free Constitutional Republic or continue to descend into a socialist dictatorship. Accordingly, the stakes are high and I would think that the strategists within the Republican party and the assorted campaign managers would seize the opportunity to bring the eligibility issue right up there on top with the others, since it is a legitimate issue, which has import upon many of the others, particularly National Defense and Foreign Policy. Imagine, if you will, a national debate, whereby a Republican or Independent candidate whips out an official copy of his birth certificate, school transcripts, passports, etc., then announces something like this, “Not only am I qualified to be President and right on the issues, but first and foremost I am eligible to become President, as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. I can prove my eligibility, yet my opponent has spent approximately $1.5 mil covering up and hiding his records from public scrutiny, attacking and disparaging those who challenge his eligibility, and refusing to appear in court because he’s too busy campaigning, giving our money away, bailing out banks and corporations, bankrupting and apologizing for our country, and playing golf or basketball. Is it any wonder to anyone that this publicly, undocumented socialist, anti-American president takes the positions on immigration and other issues that he does, since he is not a natural-born citizen, which is why our Founding Fathers were concerned about the danger of loyalties to a foreign land and addressed it in the U.S. Constitution?” If the president doesn’t release his records for public scrutiny in like manner and if the debate panelists in the debates and the media in general do not insist or ask the question, then the opposing candidate(s), Republican and Independents should rightfully challenge and ask this question, “Since the panel doesn’t ask the question and are possibly censoring the tweets, I will ask the question. Mr. President, what is in your records that is so secret that you don’t want revealed and us to see, what is it that you are hiding from the American people, Mr. President? As Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces personnel, who have sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and who put their blood and guts on the line to do so, and who are required to prove their citizenship as do most Americans to get a job, don’t you think that you, too, should provide an official, hard copy of your birth certificate and other pertinent documents? Surely, sir, you don’t think that you are above the law or somehow exempt from showing that you are, in fact, under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, eligible to be President of the United States of America?” Hopefully, all Republican delegates will approve this resolution and continue to elevate the eligibility issue all the way up to the National convention and insist that whoever is the Republican nominee keep this issue as a high priority item to be brought forth in political ads and debates during the General election. BACKGROUND RESOURCES WND.com is an excellent website, which provides the latest information regarding the eligibility and the birth certificate issue. Also, below is a link to Orly Taitz’s comments after the Court hearing in Atlanta, January 26, 2012, on Barack Obama's ineligibility to be on the Georgia ballot for President. Note the biased and antagonistc attitude of the media rep asking the questions. http://www.wnd.com/?s=Where%27s+The+Birth+Certificate%3F&sort=&order=&from=&to=2012-01-30&category=&author= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2EVrQiOZ1g&list=PL54FAA29E29AD9139&context=C32d20a4ADOEgsToPDskK9TFEtZndLztPRpzwgnFWG An excellent book on the subject is, “Where’s The Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is NOT Eligible To Be President, by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. You can obtain this book online or locally at Barnes & Noble. If anyone hasn’t read the book, I highly recommend it and the website above as a source for getting up to speed on the subject to demolish the flimsy arguments presented by the media and the Obama enablers in and out of the Democrat party, including some so-called Conservatives. It should be incumbent upon all delegates and candidates, alike, who truly believe in upholding and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to use these resources, so that they can do their own research and become a powerful influence in arguing the subject and promoting a thorough, eligibility, vetting process, which will surely contribute significantly to a Republican victory in November.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Newt Gingrich coming to Colorado!!!! 2012 Colorado Energy Summit Monday February 6, 2012 - 1:00pm MT Green Center ... 924 16th St. Colorado School of Mines ... Golden, CO 80401