Pope Obama says citizens have no right to question the authority of the King

[GLOBALIST]

By David Ingram

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has gone to court to try to block a subpoena from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York seeking White House documents about the government's requirement of insurance coverage for birth control.

The subpoena requesting documents from President Barack Obama and his senior advisers would be burdensome to fulfill, the administration said in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the suit also argues that civil subpoenas of the president's executive office are inappropriate except in extraordinary circumstances.

The lawsuit was filed on Thursday and released on a court website on Friday.

Religious organizations, individuals and corporations have filed scores of suits to block a planned mandate that employers generally include coverage of contraception in health insurance plans they offer workers.

Though the mandate has some exceptions for religious employers, the New York archdiocese, one of the largest in the United States, said it expected to incur nearly $200 million each year in penalties if it refuses to comply.

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is sinful because it violates natural law.

A judge in Brooklyn federal court allowed an archdiocese lawsuit over the mandate to move forward in December, over the administration's argument that it was premature.

A lawyer for the archdiocese declined to comment on Friday on the administration's court action.

Obama has been trying to negotiate a settlement of the highly charged dispute, which pits advocates for women's health against those who say a mandate would violate the religious freedom of employers who oppose birth control.

A version of the mandate released in February would not apply to churches and other places of worship even when they operate schools and social services.

It would apply to others, including religiously affiliated nonprofit groups. But in those cases, it calls on private insurers to cover contraceptives through separate plans for employees, not through the employer's group plan.

The mandate was part of the 2010 healthcare law championed by Obama and congressional Democrats.

The Justice Department is representing the White House in the subpoena fight. A department spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Xavier Briand)

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"GLOBALIST" wrote in message
news:cd52c9a4-9c66-4db8...@googlegroups.com...

By David Ingram

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has gone to court to try to
block a subpoena from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York seeking
White House documents about the government's requirement of insurance
coverage for birth control.

/snip - follow the thread/

***************************
[That line of asterisks separates my response from that to which I am
responding so folks don't misquote me.]

Hey - "GLOBALIST" - make up your mind.

Is Obama a Pope or is he a King? Cite, please, where in all the history of
the Roman Catholic Church a Pope called himself a King. Likewise, cite,
please where a secular King called himself the Pope of the Roman Catholic
Church. You do live in a world different from that in which we others live,
do you not?

Now are you AGAIN going to crawl back under that rock of yours?

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:kjph7g$45r$1...@dont-email.me...

*****************************
Yes sireee - "GLOBALIST" has AGAIN done crawled into his hole under his
rock.

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:kkrkln$qtf$1...@dont-email.me...

******************************
There sits "GLOBALIST" in his hole under his rock, probably trying to figure
out how to make a three headed coin so he can toss it to determine whether
Obama is a Pope, a King, or a demi-god.

[Chris]

GLOBALIST wrote:
> By David Ingram
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has gone to court to try to block a subpoena from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York seeking White House documents about the government's requirement of insurance coverage for birth control.
>

"Pope Obama"?

I thought that you guys believed that he was a Muslim from Kenya, who
attended a Protestant Church for over 25 years, and by the way, is the
only President to regularly attend Church on Sunday (career choices
permitting) with his family since JFK!

What's wrong with you people? You can't even keep your lies
straight, let alone tell the truth!

Telling lies is a bad thing. If you read the Bible, you would be well
aware of that.

Shame on you.

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Chris" wrote in message
news:323367e7-2ce7-4601...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

***************************
[The asterisks separate my response from the foregoing]

Now that's as good a riposte as any! But you need to understand
"GLOBALIST" - hypocrite that he is. "GLOBALIST" is as faithful a Christian
as can be when it is to his advantage to be so. But when it is not - as
when he is confronted with the truth and the honest to goodness facts - then
he hies himself as quickly as he can back into that hole of his under his
rock. Take the issue of Catholic Church officials covering up the Church
clergy's sex abuse of the young - "GLOBALIST" by his very silence in not
openly and publicly denouncing and condemning those officials essentially
tolerates - if not condones - those folks. This is a particularly egregious
instance of "GLOBALIST" following the lead of the Vatican and ignoring the
Christian good of doing the right thing morally, ethically, and spiritually.

Watch AGAIN as "GLOBALIST" remains in his hole under that rock of his.

[mg]

On Apr 6, 8:06 am, GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By David Ingram
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has gone to court to try to block a subpoena from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York seeking White House documents about the government's requirement of insurance coverage for birth control.

. . .

We are a nation of laws and the issue is in the courts. I know it's
disappointing to many Catholics, but you're going to have to just face
up to the fact that you can't get your way by shoving a hot poker up
somebody's ass anymore.

[chatnoir]

On Apr 6, 8:06 am, GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By David Ingram
>

To the contrary, It appears that people have had no right to question
the authority of the Pope!!

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:km6asl$ub9$1...@dont-email.me...

*****************
Yup - there went "GLOBALIST" back down into his hole.

[Planet Visitor II]

Not to criticize, but if you expect people to pay more attention to your
comments, don't you think it's time to remove that silly blurb about
Earl, considering he hasn't posted since the 19th of April, doesn't post
that much any longer, and is not very well at this time?


Planet Visitor II

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message
news:r3fio8l4hqvqsrokd...@4ax.com...

hmmm...so where, pray tell, in the foregoing is "that silly blurb about
Earl"? I've read and re-read this particular thread and can find only
references to myself, "Chris," and - of course - "GLOBALIST." Nothing at
all about Earl no how no where.

[Planet Visitor II]

Well, thanks for that. Now if you could make sure it doesn't happen again,
as it has happened in three other comments from you TODAY (1), it would go
a long way toward me reading your remarks.

(1)
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/8a20095e48061d88
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/096a6918ea21845c
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/caed1f1b70fe1788


Planet Visitor II

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message

news:4pnio8pdop1nrsdkh...@4ax.com...

Nope - looked at each and every one of your cited posts and nothing that I
wrote today references Earl. There are embedded posts from times past which
do reference Earl, but those were written awhile ago...not today. I keep
these embedded posts first and foremost as a reminder of just how long
"GLOBALIST" has been in that hole of his under his rock. As you can see
from those posts which do reference Earl, "GLOBALIST" has been in his hole a
good long time. The second reason is that I am not one to change - to
revise, as it were - the facts. Those references to Earl were indeed made
long ago and far be it for me to act as though they were not made.

Let's take each and every one of your cited links and exercise the due
diligence that you clearly did not.

Item: as per
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/8a20095e48061d88
My reference to Earl was made on March 1, 2013
My comments today (May 7, 2013) in this particular thread are:
"************
"Is "GLOBALIST" still in his hole under his rock? Why...yes. Why would one
expect differently?"

Item: as per
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/096a6918ea21845c
My reference to Earl was made on March 5, 2103
My comments today (May 7, 2013) in this particular thread are:
"****************
"Another daily reminder of "GLOBALIST's" penchant to sit as quiet as can be
in his hole under his rock. "

Item: as per
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/msg/caed1f1b70fe1788

My reference to Earl was made in March 5, 2103.
My comments today (May 7, 2103) are"
"****************
""GLOBALIST" continues to demonstrate just how much he likes his hole under
that rock of his. "

Item: as per this thread itself, I can find no reference or "silly blurb" to
Earl. If you really think that there is such a reference in this thread,
then please quote it for us because I for one can find nothing -
none...nada...zilch...nichts...nyet...iie.

Indeed, if you are of the mind that my words written today - as opposed to
those written sometime in the past - reference Earl, then again please quote
such words for my edification.

So once again - what in the world are you talking about when you indicate
that I in this thread still have this "silly blurb about Earl"? Are you
going the Jerry Okamura route of partaking Maui Zowie and okolehau to see
things that are really not there? Something like a "silly blurb about Earl"
in this thread prior to your complaint? Or do you, much as "GLOBALIST"
does, live in a world of your own?

[Planet Visitor II]

Diligence is cleaning up after yourself, my friend. For the simple reason that
you posted your remarks today, and the "silly blurb" that "YOU" created was
still in there at the very top, which means I don't read anything that follows.

As long as you have resolved to settle this by not producing any further
"silly blurbs with Earl as the subject," we have no problem, and you've gained
a reader, who previously ignored everything you had to say the moment I
observed that "silly blurb."

But like Delta airlines doesn't get concerned over one dissatisfied customer
who decides to never fly Delta again, I'm not sure that you're overly concerned
about whether I read your comments or not. I was simply trying to politely
let you know about something that was annoying me.



Planet Visitor II

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message

news:av5jo81h9au9v7frq...@4ax.com...

tsk, tsk, tsk...well, well, well - clearly another who believes in top
posting rather than in bottom posting as most folks here in fact do. (And
oddly enough, so do you inasmuch as you are bottom posting here. It must
only be in reading posts of others - and not in writing your own posts- that
you favor top posting. Now that is a singularly odd combination.) That top
posting reading - together with selective reading - does get you each and
every time...does it not?

I do believe that due diligence includes leaving unaltered that which was
originally said/written and not changing the facts to cater to those who are
annoyed by them. And as I said - far be it for me to alter the facts such
as they are. But then, as they say, your mileage may vary. And if that
which was written in the past bothers you, why - then just kill file me.
The solution is as simple as that.

And for your information, "Earl" is definitely not the subject of these
posts which instead are reminders of how "GLOBALIST" hides in his hole under
that rock of his when confronted. You are welcome to explain in a clear
and rational manner how "Earl" - and not "GLOBALIST" - is the subject of
these reminders.

I must say that given your evident belief in reading top postings together
with your confessed propensity for selective reading, I find it somewhat
miraculous that you've been able to find all these bottom posts of mine in
this thread!

[Planet Visitor II]

Fallacy of presupposition. For example -- You do beat your wife each and every
day... do you not?

>I do believe that due diligence includes leaving unaltered that which was
>originally said/written and not changing the facts to cater to those who are
>annoyed by them. And as I said - far be it for me to alter the facts such
>as they are. But then, as they say, your mileage may vary. And if that
>which was written in the past bothers you, why - then just kill file me.
>The solution is as simple as that.

Such solutions are never simple... qui tacet consentire videtur. Certainly
I would not suggest that you seek only simple solutions and killfill
Globi, given I would rather enjoy reading more of your savaging of Globi's
comments, if I only could get past that all too common "blurb" that began
all of your such savaging of Globi's remarks.

For some reason you've taken me as your enemy when nothing could be
further from the truth. The "simple" fact is I was getting more and more
confounded by the fact I simply couldn't get past that "blurb" of yours,
as much as I would have wanted to. Now that we seem to have settled
that - I'm not so thin-skinned that I would hold any grudge. Nor was it
ever my intention to upset you. So if all that you're interested in is an
apology for a presumed affront to your tender sensitivities... I do apologize.

>And for your information, "Earl" is definitely not the subject of these
>posts which instead are reminders of how "GLOBALIST" hides in his hole under
>that rock of his when confronted. You are welcome to explain in a clear
>and rational manner how "Earl" - and not "GLOBALIST" - is the subject of
>these reminders.

I have brought you an argument. It is not my responsibility to bring you
an explanation.

>I must say that given your evident belief in reading top postings together
>with your confessed propensity for selective reading, I find it somewhat
>miraculous that you've been able to find all these bottom posts of mine in
>this thread!

Your wish is my command, El Comandante. :-)


Planet Visitor II

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message

news:bkgjo8h5r6gkecgpe...@4ax.com...

On Tue, 7 May 2013 17:44:35 -0700, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message
>news:av5jo81h9au9v7frq...@4ax.com...

/snip - follow the thread/

>

***************************
[The asterisks separate my response from the foregoing]

egads -

"Fallacy of presupposition. For example -- You do beat your wife each and
every
day... do you not?"

After all, it was you who said - quote - "...which means I don't read
anything that follows." Now that does bespeak of selective reading, does it
not? And you have this expectation that the newest posting is at the top
rather than at the bottom, do you not? After all, if you did exercise due
diligence you would have discovered for yourself - instead of having me
point out to you - that those references to "Earl" were made way back in
March and not at all made today such that my postings today are at the
bottom rather than at the top.

Then too it was you who said "silly blurbs with Earl as the subject, " not
I. As I pointed out, the subject of today's postings is "GLOBALIST" - not
"Earl." How you interpret these reminders of "GLOBALIST" staying in his
hole under his rock as "silly blurbs with Earl as the subject" is a
wonderment to me, except that your focus is definitely on past (two months
ago!) comments and not on present ones.

As I said before - and I say yet again -

"Indeed, if you are of the mind that my words written today - as opposed to
those written sometime in the past - reference Earl, then again please
quote such words for my edification."

Finally, you will just have to find someone else to revise the history that
you clearly would like to change. As I have already pointed out - and I'll
do so again -

[Planet Visitor II]

That's quite the same type of argument you offered in your "question" which
was not a question but a conclusion, when you stated "That top posting reading -

together with selective reading - does get you each and every time...does it not?"

Notice you make the assumption of "does get you each and every time," which
is a DECLARATIVE, which already offers YOUR answer to the question. So if this
still confuses you in respect to your Fallacy of Presupposition, see --
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#complexq
And consider the following no different from the comment you offered -- "Beating
my wife - together with a bit of verbal abuse - does get you each and every time...
does it not?"

>After all, it was you who said - quote - "...which means I don't read
>anything that follows."

That's not a question. That's a statement. Do learn the difference between
a statement and a question, since your particular comment tried to represent
BOTH a statement and a question in the same sentence. "does get you"
is a declarative... "does it not?" is an interrogative. Chee...

> Now that does bespeak of selective reading, does it
>not? And you have this expectation that the newest posting is at the top
>rather than at the bottom, do you not? After all, if you did exercise due
>diligence you would have discovered for yourself - instead of having me
>point out to you - that those references to "Earl" were made way back in
>March and not at all made today such that my postings today are at the
>bottom rather than at the top.

Obviously I'm trying to communicate with someone having only a blank slate.
I've learned more about you since we began this dialog than I really wanted to
know. And the more I know... the less there is to see. I really expected
someone who has a hard-on for Globi to be a bit more pragmatic and shrewd,
rather than someone so easy to fly off the handle from an assumed insult to
your tender pride.

>Then too it was you who said "silly blurbs with Earl as the subject, " not
>I.

And your point is??? Doesn't freedom of speech give me a right to my
opinion?? Let me assure you that the term (what I consider) "silly blurb,"
represents nothing other than my opinion, since nothing factual can be
gleaned from the term itself, because "silly" and "blurb" are non-objective
words and relate only to the subjective view of a person looking at something.

>As I pointed out, the subject of today's postings is "GLOBALIST" - not
>"Earl." How you interpret these reminders of "GLOBALIST" staying in his
>hole under his rock as "silly blurbs with Earl as the subject" is a
>wonderment to me, except that your focus is definitely on past (two months
>ago!) comments and not on present ones.

Like all things one doesn't like... it can take some time getting repeatedly hit over
the head with a hammer before one complains. As long as Earl was posting
regularly it didn't rise to the level of my being figuratively hit over the head with
that hammer to complain. But I did finally complain and found myself confronting
someone with a corncob up his ass rather than someone just reasonably
noting that he doesn't use that hammer any longer. I thought I was being
rather mild in calling it your (what I consider) "silly blurb," but instead I set
you off in a rant that I'm all too familiar with from others who are on Usenet
but don't realize that a thin skin can be a problem.

>As I said before - and I say yet again -
>"Indeed, if you are of the mind that my words written today - as opposed to
>those written sometime in the past - reference Earl, then again please
>quote such words for my edification."
>

I have already provided three examples. It is not my responsibility to ignore
the fact that you don't remove your past (what I consider) "silly blurb" in your
present comments. They ARE your words! I think that's not debatable. So
the only thing that is debatable is that you argue I should simply ignore that
(what I consider) "silly blurb" because it doesn't represent your LATEST
words, but are STILL your words.

Further, it appears that you're giving me orders as to how I'm supposed to
read your comments, even though that (what I consider) "silly blurb" still
EXISTS in your latest comments. If you don't want to remove it from your
current comments... my advice would be to just say so... instead of making
a federal case of it. But freedom of speech gives you the right to do
whatever you feel like doing. Just as my freedom of speech gives me the
right to note that (what I consider) your "silly blurb" can still be seen in
those three comments from you I noted yesterday.

>Finally, you will just have to find someone else to revise the history that
>you clearly would like to change. As I have already pointed out - and I'll
>do so again -
>"I do believe that due diligence includes leaving unaltered that which was
>originally said/written and not changing the facts to cater to those who are
>annoyed by them. And as I said - far be it for me to alter the facts such
>as they are."

Chee... IMHO... you really are easily irritated.

In any case... make your way back by yourself. I've had my say... expressed
my opinion, and your freedom of speech is intact, as you've always had that
freedom to write what you felt like, and I was simply using my freedom of speech
to express my opinion.

Good luck in your savaging of Globi.


Planet Visitor II


Planet Visitor II

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message

news:8o2lo819bqhl9hb6e...@4ax.com...

Simply put, I am not the revisionist of history as you would have me be.
That which irritates you was written well before your cited April 19, 2013
date. And given that that "blurb" - as you term it - is part and parcel of
my original response to "GLOBALIST," far be it for me to alter/change/revise
it. So learn to live with it. Or remain irritated.

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:km653h$rmg$1...@dont-email.me...

******************************
If silence is golden, then "GLOBALIST" there in his hole under his own
special rock must be a very rich person indeed!

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:knb0f8$r5b$1...@dont-email.me...

********************
And where does this wonderful Sunday find "GLOBALIST"? Where else but in
that hole of his that he loves so much under his rock!

[Lawrence T. Akutagawa]

"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:kp28o4$udi$1...@dont-email.me...

********************
"GLOBALIST" obviously loving his continued stay in his hole under his rock.