Obama administration breaks federal law again.

[Keith Olbermann]

The Obama administration will grant extra time to Americans who
say they are unable to enroll in health care plans through the
federal insurance marketplace by the deadline set for the end of
March, Fox News confirmed Tuesday.

All consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on
HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until
about mid-April to ask for an extension, federal officials told
the Washington Post.

The Washington Post reported that users will have a chance to
check a box on the website indicating they tried to enroll
before the deadline, though the government will not try to
determine whether the person actually made an effort to sign up.

"This is probably the first of many (extensions)," Chris
Stirewalt told Megyn Kelly Tuesday on "The Kelly File."

"This is the first nod to a dire political situation," Stirewalt
added.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus pounced on
the extension, calling it another delay for a "failed health
care law."

�Another day, another ObamaCare delay from the same Obama
administration that won�t work with Republicans to help
Americans suffering from the unintended consequences of the
Democrats� failed health care law," Priebus said in a statement.

"Democrats in leadership may say they are doubling down on
ObamaCare but you have to wonder how many more unilateral delays
their candidates running in 2014 can withstand.�

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/25/obama-administration-
announces-health-care-extension/

�

[FPP]

In article <d2ac9c93bb134349...@dizum.com>,

"Keith Olbermann" <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:

> The Obama administration will grant extra time to Americans who
> say they are unable to enroll in health care plans through the
> federal insurance marketplace by the deadline set for the end of
> March, Fox News confirmed Tuesday.

Puhhleeeezzz...

That horse had been dead for months now.

Please, please stop beating it...

--
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. -Twain

[BTR1701]

In article <fredp151-56C10D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <d2ac9c93bb134349...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Olbermann" <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>
> > The Obama administration will grant extra time to Americans who
> > say they are unable to enroll in health care plans through the
> > federal insurance marketplace by the deadline set for the end of
> > March, Fox News confirmed Tuesday.
>
> Puhhleeeezzz...
>
> That horse had been dead for months now.

So we're only allowed to point out Obama's lawless behavior once, and
then it's off limits?

I bet you hope that trick really works.

[suzeeq]

Yep, once and it's done. I'm sure you people will find something else to
kvetch about.

[trotsky]

What are you expecting to happen, teabagger?

[trotsky]

Benghazi!

[Rolling Block]

Some guys out for a walk who just decided to kill some Americans?

Or was it youtube?

I get confused..

[Rolling Block]

On 6/1/2014 6:39 PM, FPP wrote:
> In article <d2ac9c93bb134349...@dizum.com>,
> "Keith Olbermann" <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>
>> The Obama administration will grant extra time to Americans who
>> say they are unable to enroll in health care plans through the
>> federal insurance marketplace by the deadline set for the end of
>> March, Fox News confirmed Tuesday.
>
> Puhhleeeezzz...

Hate the truth, leftard.

[Rolling Block]

Well....he got re-elected...

:-(

[Rolling Block]

He does tend to flout the Constitution on a regular basis, yes....

[Rolling Block]

I expect someone to interdict you very soon, cunt.

[BTR1701]

In article <lmgiqh$gtt$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

Maybe you guys should remember that the next time you bring up Bush and
the WMDs. Bush ain't even president anymore.

[trotsky]

Excellent use of the straw man argument.

[trotsky]

Well said, righturd.

[trotsky]

Anonyshit alert.

[suzeeq]

I don't ever bring up political arguements on a tv group...

[Rolling Block]

But Bush Derangement Syndrome is incurable.

[Rolling Block]

Cogent observation of your behavior, you worthless scumsucker.

[Rolling Block]

On 6/2/2014 7:27 AM, trotsky should be rolled flat in hot asphalt.

[Rolling Block]

On 6/2/2014 7:28 AM, trotsky should be rolled flat in hot asphalt.

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmgiqh$gtt$1...@dont-email.me...

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <fredp151-56C10D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <d2ac9c93bb134349...@dizum.com>,
>> "Keith Olbermann" <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Obama administration will grant extra time to Americans who say they
>>> are unable to enroll in health care plans through the federal insurance
>>> marketplace by the deadline set for the end of March, Fox News confirmed
>>> Tuesday.
>> Puhhleeeezzz...
>>
>> That horse had been dead for months now.
>
> So we're only allowed to point out Obama's lawless behavior once, and then
> it's off limits?

# Yep, once and it's done. I'm sure you people will find something else to
# kvetch about.

It's being kvetched about because Obama keeps on adding to his long list of
law violations.
There is really no point of having a senate, house or judiciary. Obama does
whatever the fuck he wants to do with no consequences.

[Bill Steele]

On 6/1/14, 3:55 PM, Keith Olbermann wrote:
> All consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on
> HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until
> about mid-April to ask for an extension, federal officials told
> the Washington Post.

And by reposting this ancient news you have accomplished...?

[suzeeq]

Unlike any other president before him, hmmm.....

[Rolling Block]

C_O_N_T_E_X_T!

[BTR1701]

In article <lmicdg$qlr$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

Actually, yes. It's unlike any other president before him.

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmicdg$qlr$1...@dont-email.me...

# Unlike any other president before him, hmmm.....

Bingo. Now you understand.
Most of the time Obama doesn't even bother with a justification that it is
in a grey area.
He publically says that he doesn't like a law, isn't going to abide by it,
then violates it.

[suzeeq]

Not.

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmj594$lh9$1...@dont-email.me...

# Not.

Would you care to name one? (and don't trot out Bush. Obama isn't qualified
to wash Bush's jock strap)

[suzeeq]

Regan. Though I think Bush Sr was behind the scenes there...

[BTR1701]

In article <lmj594$lh9$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

You act like a schoolchild with her fingers in her ears all you want,
but even left-leaning legal scholars have commented that Obama's
expansion of executive power is unprecedented in American history.

[suzeeq]

Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.

[Rolling Block]

Paranoiac lunacy.

Regan was not President.

[Rolling Block]

Can we get a Nixonian exit out of the shit?

[BTR1701]

In article <lmjhbt$n11$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>

And Nixon suffered serious consequences for it. Should Obama suffer the
same? He sure hasn't so far.

If the same criteria you expect for Obama had been in effect for Nixon,
you'd allow for Watergate to be mentioned "once, then it's done", right?

Or is it different when it's not a Dem?

[trotsky]

Wouldn't you have to have people in your camp that are credible enough
to bring such consequences? Ted Cruz perhaps? Rand Paul? Sarah Palin?
They're all idiots. You sound like you're trying to support idiots. Why?

[Rolling Block]

On 6/3/2014 6:02 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 6/3/14 2:21 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <lmjhbt$n11$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.
>>
>> And Nixon suffered serious consequences for it. Should Obama suffer the
>> same? He sure hasn't so far.
>
>
> Wouldn't you have to have people in your camp that are credible enough
> to bring such consequences? Ted Cruz perhaps?

Uh...Nixon was prosecuted by a Democrat special prosecutor, not his own
party members.

Use a brain much?

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmjhbt$n11$1...@dont-email.me...

# Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.

Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
than Obama.
Obama needs to pay the piper.

[Dano]

"Wayne" wrote in message news:lmkrvc$lth$1...@dont-email.me...

# Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.

Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
than Obama.

=============================================

Well...if you ignore that whole breaking and entering thing...

[Wayne]

"Dano" wrote in message news:lml991$3hv$1...@dont-email.me...

"Wayne" wrote in message news:lmkrvc$lth$1...@dont-email.me...




# Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.

Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
than Obama.

=============================================

# Well...if you ignore that whole breaking and entering thing...

Actually, you can count all that and never get close to what Obama has done.

[Dano]

"Wayne" wrote in message news:lmle6l$b56$1...@dont-email.me...

============================================

Actually you can't. You certainly haven't produced any proof of that here.

[Joe Cooper]

"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:lmlege$d55$1...@dont-email.me:

> Actually you can't. You certainly haven't produced any proof of that
> here.

How about providing material aid to an enemy during wartime - or, as the
Constitution puts it, (Article 3 Section 3 for Democrats):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall
be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.

"giving them Aid and Comfort" certainly includes returning the top five
Taliban leaders to the battlefield.

Unless you're a Democrat, then I suppose it's just "hope and change."


Remember in November

--
"If the Democrats didn�t have double standards, they wouldn�t have any
standards all." (Chuck Lehmann)

�The best way to undermine leftism is to let it operate for awhile.
Expose the country at large to the nightmare realities of life under a
Lyndon Johnson, a Jimmy Carter, or an Obama, and you will inoculate the
citizenry for a generation to come.� � J.R. Dunn

[Wayne]

"Dano" wrote in message news:lmlege$d55$1...@dont-email.me...

"Wayne" wrote in message news:lmle6l$b56$1...@dont-email.me...



"Dano" wrote in message news:lml991$3hv$1...@dont-email.me...

"Wayne" wrote in message news:lmkrvc$lth$1...@dont-email.me...




# Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.

Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
than Obama.

=============================================

# Well...if you ignore that whole breaking and entering thing...

Actually, you can count all that and never get close to what Obama has done.

============================================

# Actually you can't. You certainly haven't produced any proof of that
here.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

On several occasions, Obama has announced that he doesn't like specific laws
and will not enforce them.

I understand that some people are Obama supporters, but how can they ignore
a president running amuck.

[suzeeq]

Wayne wrote:
>
> "Dano" wrote in message news:lmlege$d55$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Wayne" wrote in message news:lmle6l$b56$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> "Dano" wrote in message news:lml991$3hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Wayne" wrote in message news:lmkrvc$lth$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
> # Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.
>
> Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
> than Obama.
>
> =============================================
>
> # Well...if you ignore that whole breaking and entering thing...
>
> Actually, you can count all that and never get close to what Obama has done.
>
> ============================================
>
> # Actually you can't. You certainly haven't produced any proof of that
> here.
>
> Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
>
> On several occasions, Obama has announced that he doesn't like specific laws
> and will not enforce them.

Oh, like the laws against marijuana use. Note that many Republican
congressman are now in favor of legalizing it, at least for medical
purposes, if not recreational use.

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmlqk2$rn3$2...@dont-email.me...

Wayne wrote:
>
> "Dano" wrote in message news:lmlege$d55$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Wayne" wrote in message news:lmle6l$b56$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> "Dano" wrote in message news:lml991$3hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Wayne" wrote in message news:lmkrvc$lth$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
> # Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.
>
> Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
> than Obama.
>
> =============================================
>
> # Well...if you ignore that whole breaking and entering thing...
>
> Actually, you can count all that and never get close to what Obama has
> done.
>
> ============================================
>
> # Actually you can't. You certainly haven't produced any proof of that
> here.
>
> Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
>
> On several occasions, Obama has announced that he doesn't like specific
> laws and will not enforce them.

# Oh, like the laws against marijuana use.

Bingo, there's one.
Another DOMA, another the DREAM act
There are numerous examples.

It's fine for someone to support Obama's goals. But, it is unforgiveable
for him to unilaterally create a law.

[suzeeq]

Yeah, and they're bad laws, serving to make people criminals who don't
deserve it, much like Prohibition did. Or maybe you own stock in a
company that builds or maintains prisons?

> It's fine for someone to support Obama's goals. But, it is unforgiveable
> for him to unilaterally create a law.

He's not creating laws.

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmlsai$617$1...@dont-email.me...

Wayne wrote:
>
> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmlqk2$rn3$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> Wayne wrote:
>> "Dano" wrote in message news:lmlege$d55$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Wayne" wrote in message news:lmle6l$b56$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dano" wrote in message news:lml991$3hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Wayne" wrote in message news:lmkrvc$lth$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> # Nixon thought he was above the law which is what you accuse Obama of.
>>
>> Yes indeed. And Nixon had far fewer creative interpretations of the law
>> than Obama.
>>
>> =============================================
>>
>> # Well...if you ignore that whole breaking and entering thing...
>>
>> Actually, you can count all that and never get close to what Obama has
>> done.
>>
>> ============================================
>>
>> # Actually you can't. You certainly haven't produced any proof of that
>> here.
>>
>> Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
>>
>> On several occasions, Obama has announced that he doesn't like specific
>> laws and will not enforce them.
>
> # Oh, like the laws against marijuana use.
>
> Bingo, there's one.
> Another DOMA, another the DREAM act
> There are numerous examples.

# Yeah, and they're bad laws, serving to make people criminals who don't
# deserve it, much like Prohibition did. Or maybe you own stock in a
# company that builds or maintains prisons?

So your solution to bad laws is to leave them on the books and have the
president ignore them????

[BTR1701]

In article <lmlqk2$rn3$2...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

There's a difference between advocating for legalization and just
ignoring the law and breaking it because you don't agree with it.

[BTR1701]

In article <lmlsai$617$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

The proper solution to a bad law is to amend or repeal it, not ignore it
and do what you want.

> > It's fine for someone to support Obama's goals. But, it is unforgiveable
> > for him to unilaterally create a law.
>
> He's not creating laws.

No, he's ignoring the ones already on the books.

[suzeeq]

They're working on that. But you know what it's like to get congress to
act on anything... BTW, there's a lot of other LE agencies that are
telling their people that arrests for marijuana use should be a low
priority, which is virtually the same as what the president said.

>>> It's fine for someone to support Obama's goals. But, it is unforgiveable
>>> for him to unilaterally create a law.
>> He's not creating laws.
>
> No, he's ignoring the ones already on the books.

Wayne wrote that he is.

[Dano]

"Wayne" wrote in message news:lmlo4m$er4$1...@dont-email.me...

===============================================

Because he is not. Republicans...including those who were crying out for
this fellow to be rescued...until it actually happened...sure seem to have
been "running amuck" throughout this man's presidency.

[trotsky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6cn0mLJVZY

[BTR1701]

In article <lmm2o4$8d0$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <lmlsai$617$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Wayne wrote:
> >>> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmlqk2$rn3$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>>
> >>> Wayne wrote:

> >>> Bingo, there's one.
> >>> Another DOMA, another the DREAM act
> >>> There are numerous examples.

> >> Yeah, and they're bad laws, serving to make people criminals who don't
> >> deserve it, much like Prohibition did.
> >
> > The proper solution to a bad law is to amend or repeal it, not ignore it
> > and do what you want.
>
> They're working on that.

Then until it's done, he's legally obligated to follow the laws as they
stand. And no, they're not working on repealing all the laws Obama is
ignoring. The administration isn't trying to repeal Obamacare, for
example, yet Obama routinely ignores the requirements of that law when
it's politically convenient for him to do so.

[suzeeq]

I meant the marijuana laws. And Congress has tried how many times to
repeal the law they voted into place...? It just isn't going away.

[BTR1701]

In article <lmndrr$a99$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>

Congress isn't the one ignoring the law. Obama opposes efforts to repeal
Obamacare even as he ignores the law's requirements.

[Bill Steele]

On 6/4/14, 8:15 AM, trotsky wrote:
>
> Actually, you can count all that and never get close to what Obama has
> done.

You mean, sneaking past the Republican/Industrial Complex to get
something done abut global warming? Perfectly legal, just irritating.

[trotsky]

On 6/3/14 8:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> No, he's ignoring the ones already on the books.

And the impeachment proceedings are begnning when, exactly?

[trotsky]

On 6/4/14 10:01 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <lmm2o4$8d0$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <lmlsai$617$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmlqk2$rn3$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>
>>>>> Bingo, there's one.
>>>>> Another DOMA, another the DREAM act
>>>>> There are numerous examples.
>
>>>> Yeah, and they're bad laws, serving to make people criminals who don't
>>>> deserve it, much like Prohibition did.
>>>
>>> The proper solution to a bad law is to amend or repeal it, not ignore it
>>> and do what you want.
>>
>> They're working on that.
>
> Then until it's done, he's legally obligated to follow the laws

Maybe you're trying to say the violent overthrow of the U.S. govt. is
necessary. Is that it?

[trotsky]

On 6/4/14 10:01 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> In article <lmm2o4$8d0$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <lmlsai$617$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmlqk2$rn3$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>
>>>>> Bingo, there's one.
>>>>> Another DOMA, another the DREAM act
>>>>> There are numerous examples.
>
>>>> Yeah, and they're bad laws, serving to make people criminals who don't
>>>> deserve it, much like Prohibition did.
>>>
>>> The proper solution to a bad law is to amend or repeal it, not ignore it
>>> and do what you want.
>>
>> They're working on that.
>
> Then until it's done, he's legally obligated to follow the laws

[suzeeq]

As soon as they can find an impeachable action.

[trotsky]

Exactly.

[Wayne]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmr7ao$v0g$1...@dont-email.me...

trotsky wrote:
> On 6/3/14 8:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> No, he's ignoring the ones already on the books.
>
>
> And the impeachment proceedings are begnning when, exactly?

# As soon as they can find an impeachable action.

That isn't going to happen as long as the Astonished Bystander in Chief has
crooks such as Holder.

[Steve Bartman]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:00:28 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Hang up on Usenet and go read the Constitution. Once. Please.

Steve

[Dano]

"Steve Bartman" wrote in message
news:srp3p9hejfm44sok8...@4ax.com...

==============================================

Read ANYTHING eh?

[The Starmaker]

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." --Henry A. Kissinger

[The Starmaker]

Let me explain to you'all what the above quote means..

if you want to do something...and it's illegal, you do it immediately
without hesitation. Fuck the law!


In otherwords, if I want to do something...and it's illegal, like who
gives a fuck?, i do the fuck whatever I want,
nobody tells me what to do! Nobody!!

And if I'm the President of The United States, what difference does it
make?, I'm still the same person,
i do the fuck whatever i want. You guys can stand on the corner waiting
for the light to turn green...i'm
crossing the fucking street.

The illegal we do immediately.

Immediately!


What I want, I take.

If I want your girl, she belongs to me!

I take her, she's mine.

Your wife...takes a little longer.


'Your girlfriend I take immediately. Your wife takes a little longer.'


You got a car? It's mine!


You got a plane? Try and find it.

[Wayne]

"Steve Bartman" wrote in message
news:srp3p9hejfm44sok8...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:00:28 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmr7ao$v0g$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>trotsky wrote:
>> On 6/3/14 8:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> No, he's ignoring the ones already on the books.
>>
>>
>> And the impeachment proceedings are begnning when, exactly?
>
># As soon as they can find an impeachable action.
>
>That isn't going to happen as long as the Astonished Bystander in Chief
>has
>crooks such as Holder.

# Hang up on Usenet and go read the Constitution. Once. Please.

Done that. And the problem is that Obama continually ignores it.

[Bill Steele]

Just that one can be more or less enthusiastic about following the law.
Ever have a trooper just give you a warning?

[tesla sTinker]

On 6/2/2014 10:31 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
>>

>> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:lmgiqh$gtt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <fredp151-56C10D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <d2ac9c93bb134349...@dizum.com>,
>>>> "Keith Olbermann" <msnb...@espn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Obama administration will grant extra time to Americans who say
>>>>> they are unable to enroll in health care plans through the federal
>>>>> insurance marketplace by the deadline set for the end of March, Fox
>>>>> News confirmed Tuesday.
>>>> Puhhleeeezzz...
>>>>
>>>> That horse had been dead for months now.
>>> So we're only allowed to point out Obama's lawless behavior once, and
>>> then it's off limits?
>>
>> # Yep, once and it's done. I'm sure you people will find something
>> else to
>> # kvetch about.
>>
>> It's being kvetched about because Obama keeps on adding to his long
>> list of law violations.
>> There is really no point of having a senate, house or judiciary. Obama
>> does whatever the fuck he wants to do with no consequences.
>
> Unlike any other president before him, hmmm.....

No, He has consequences. Same as everyone else. BUT< him and his kind,
just do not believe in man's true God, but only in little g god's of
man... Make certain, everyone understands verse #10 completely.
Especially in the very first part. AND >>>
, lets give another example that apply s also to the same verse #, just
so no one misses real authority of the Almighty God here. lets try > The
Concordia in Italia.
http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/dogma/catholicbooks/HolyBible/Wisdom.htm#chpt3mk11

then, skip to Chapter #5, see verse #1. Ah ha, I think we are fed up.

And that makes the book of Wisdom, right. Lets just see,
how much he is honored, when it comes to his time, to go meet his Maker.
Obama nation Tar Sands oil for Bush. What do you mean?
I mean, CANCER GALORE witch, Tar Sands oil, immigration, and all those
stocks from the health care skyrocketing in payments. The ingredients
all fit. Especially with no jobs for anyone to take good care of
themselves with. I mean, have you ever tried to live on food banks?

Bush, Obama, both of them, (nazi republicans.) Not to mention
freemasons. They just lie about every 2/3rds
of any thing and everything, to keep you very confused in
understanding it all, the truth.

Union State address, 11™million new jobs, says Obama. You know, the
peace sign, that must be a new set of world trade center towers right
on the ends of his finger?, look out new york......

A republican is a socialist witchcraft liar. Obama, True, & true define
of socialism paganism, is communism. You know, ism's. Germany third WTC
Tower in Berlin. Shuffles all money to Swiss banks from tower #1 and #
2. And all about what Stalin had did in past history...... The
Bolshevism... Hitler, The same.... Transparency of the computer you
know, its such a visible thing.

Funny, the true Catholic Church in of her REAL proper order documents,
say's, and declares, in rule, Communism is excommunicated from the pale
of the true church. Is Antichrist. But you will not catch them say that
in rome today. No no, its democracy....... were Christians, right!

This is all true history. see the documents, above url.
copy them all you want. And you can also use Free speech shit,
to uncover quite a pale of trash miles long that no one can miss
about these bastards. Pentagon. But first, before you get started,
understand that they know, they are in the phony judges seat in this
pile of shit called United States, of which it is not. Not in the past
20 years. Yup, the same. So the moment you want to fool yourself about
justice, just remember, God is watching.

Putin Ways, Obama - Bush weighs both. They all in the same measure, the
Titanic split in two. JP Morgan witchcraft. He missed his own boat that
day and was the true owner of it. Guess which end, they are not riding
on? the head part! the part that goes to heaven. Instead, they sank with
tail end of it, which is why, it spun around backwards before it hit the
ocean floor.

Maybe that means, we should not let our children play with their children!

For sure it means, they are no captain.







--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---