The Hooker      An Illegal Immigrant picks up a hooker. ·       "Hey, how much you charge for da hour, sister?" he asks. "$100" she replies. In broken English, he says, "Do you do immigrant style? "No"   she says. "I pay you $200 to do immigrant style."    "No," she says, not knowing what immigrant style is. "I pay you $300." "No,"  she says.   "I pay you $400. "No,"  she says. So finally he says, "OK, I pay $1,000 to Do immigrant style."   She thinks, "Well, I've been in the game for over 10 years now. I've had every kind of request from weirdoes  from every part of the world. How bad could immigrant style be? So she agrees and has sex with him. Finally, they finish. Exhausted, the hooker turns to him and says,  "Hey, I was expecting something  perverted and disgusting. But that was ok.  So, what exactly is immigrant style?"   The illegal immigrant replies, "You send bill to Government."      AND THAT MY FRIENDLY TAXPAYER, IS EXACTLY WHAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE DOING TO US!

McGurn: Community Organizers Sue Obama What Chicago would be like with the contraceptive mandate—and without Catholic Charities. Saul Alinsky may have dedicated his "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer. Even so, the father of community organizing knew that his efforts would have gone nowhere in his hometown of Chicago without the help of an institution that had been serving the city's poorest communities long before he arrived: the Catholic Church. In 1939, Alinsky famously worked with the church to organize the "Back of the Yards" slum on the edge of the Chicago stockyards. Nearly 50 years later, a young Columbia graduate named Barack Obama followed in his footsteps. From an office in the rectory of Holy Rosary Church on the city's South Side, the future president began his career as a community organizer. Now the one-time allies are at loggerheads. On Monday, Catholic Charities of Chicago—the social-welfare arm of the archdiocese—joined other Illinois Catholic organizations to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration's mandate that would force these Catholic groups to offer free contraceptives through their insurance, in violation of church teaching. The suit's message is direct: Mr. President, your mandate will make it impossible for us to do our jobs. Judging from how President Obama now sounds like George W. Bush when he talks about the Catholic Church, the president appreciates the political harm his mandate is doing. At a campaign stop last Thursday in Ohio, he repeated what has become a stock line: "When I first got my job as an organizer for the Catholic churches in Chicago . . . they taught me that no government program can replace good neighbors and people who care deeply about their communities [and] who are fighting on their behalf." In terms of religious liberty, the new lawsuit breaks no new legal ground. What it does is offer a window into how much the decency of daily American life depends on churches using their free-exercise rights. Our nation's third-largest city provides an especially compelling example. Chicago's Catholic Charities employs 2,700 full- and part-time staffers delivering relief aimed at helping people achieve self-sufficiency. They do everything from stocking food pantries to helping people with HIV/AIDS, resettling refugees, housing seniors, and training people for jobs. Last year alone, that translated into 19 million meals in the form of groceries for single moms, another 2.5 million meals served to the hungry or homeless, 458,000 nights of shelter for families and children, and 897,481 hours of homemaker services for seniors. And these numbers don't include the thousands of inner-city children served by the archdiocese's Catholic schools but not on the Catholic Charities budget. When you ask the Rev. Michael Boland, president and CEO of Catholic Charities, what percentage of those he serves are Catholic, he answers that he doesn't know, because they don't ask. The Obama administration's mandate would change that. Particularly galling, he says, is the charge that his church is engaged in a "war on women"—when 80% of those his organization serves are women and children. As the lawsuit puts it: Enforcing the mandate could soon require Catholic Charities to "stop providing educational opportunities to non-Catholics, stop serving non-Catholics, and fire non-Catholic employees—actions that would betray their religious commitment to serving all in need without regard to religion." Yes, the bulk of the Catholic Charities budget these days comes from government funding. There's a perfectly legitimate public question about what accepting that funding means for both society and the church. It's not, however, the only public question. Another important one is this: Will our society rely on civic institutions or the government to deliver these services? Does anyone really believe we would be better off turning over the work of Catholic Charities to states or the feds—with their higher costs, greater bureaucracy, and loss in efficiency? In a recent report, Catholic Charities notes that it costs Medicaid (read: taxpayers) $43,000 per year for every senior in a nursing home. By contrast, Catholic Charities provides day care for seniors at $6,461 per year, home-delivered meals at $1,188 and services such as housecleaning for $4,028. Any one of these services can keep an elderly citizen in his own house instead of being sent to a nursing home (one of the great drivers of Medicaid's escalating costs). Overall, 92 cents of every Catholic Charities dollar goes to recipients, which is one reason Catholic Charities is so often chosen for contracts. The church can provide such value because for every staffer, it has nearly seven volunteers. That works out to a volunteer army of 17,000 people, larger than Chicago's police force. It's worth asking what Chicago might look like if these religious volunteers were limited to employing and serving only those who share their faith. And not just Chicago. Across America, volunteers with other faith groups are also reclaiming lives and neighborhoods in a way that even Mr. Obama says is far superior to any government program. Something he might want to mention to his secretary of health and human services. Write to MainStreet@wsj.com

Unemployment Rate Dropped In Every State That Elected A Republican Gov. In 2010   In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate. Hello OBAMITES...CHANGE YOU CAN REALY COUNT ON!

Paul LePage, Maine Governor, Blasts Obamacare, Calls IRS 'The New Gestapo' Maine Governor Paul LePage blasted the Supreme Court's health care ruling on Saturday, saying the "decision has made America less free." "We the people have been told there is no choice," LePage said in his weekly radio address. "You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo -- the I.R.S." He specifically targeted the individual mandate, calling its classification as a tax the most "disturbing" portion of the ruling. “Now that Congress can use the taxation power of the federal government to compel behavior or lack thereof, what’s next?" LePage asked. "More taxes if we don’t drive Toyota Priuses or if we eat too much junk food or maybe even pea soup?” LePage has a history of making controversial remarks. During his 2010 run for governor, the Tea Party-backed Republican turned heads at a GOP forum by vowing he would tell President Barack Obama to "go to hell." After winning the 2010 election, LePage chose not to attend a January 2011 NAACP event honoring Martin Luther King Jr. Day. When asked why, he said he would not be held "held hostage" by special interests, and that the organization could "kiss my butt." At Maine's 2012 GOP convention, LePage took on welfare, telling able-bodied recipients to "get off the couch and get yourself a job." Those words drew a standing ovation from the crowd.

While you were sleeping .............! Dear Patriots, While many of us were "sleeping," our country is being transformed into a dictatorship presidency. Read this excellent information to understand what is taking place. If you see that this information is important and has merit, I would ask that you pass it along to all people on your email list. It is urgent that all registered voters understand what is going on. Together we can make a difference by spreading this message and by voting and getting every conservative to vote in November. God bless you and may we, as a country, deserve God's blessings again. Sara Owid Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans    The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860.This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.    The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.    The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.    During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.    The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.     For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.    The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Actwhich confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.    Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.     None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress.The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.    It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.     Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.    The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.    The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.     Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.     Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.    Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.    The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the foundersin the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.    What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, toa chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them  Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.   Steve McCann  May 12, 2012    I would add but 6 words to those above mentioned, Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney, to say "and we the American people also", must come to grips with this moment in time and our role in denying Barack Obama his life long goal of "transforming" us into his slaves working on his government plantation. Please forward this to all you can, maybe together we can save America for ourselves and those who will follow after us.                          GOD BLESS AMERICA

Obama's Imperial Presidency When Congress won't do what he wants, he ignores it and acts anyway. By Kimberly A. Strassel The ObamaCare litigation is history, with the president's takeover of the health sector deemed constitutional. Now we can focus on the rest of the Obama imperial presidency. Where, you are wondering, have you recently heard that term? Ah, yes. The "imperial presidency" of George W. Bush was a favorite judgment of the left about our 43rd president's conduct in war, wiretapping and detentions. Yet say this about Mr. Bush: His aggressive reading of executive authority was limited to the area where presidents are at their core power—the commander-in-chief function.   By contrast, presidents are (supposed to be) at their weakest in the realm of domestic policy—subject to checks and balances, co-equal to the other branches. Yet this is where Mr. Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. The health law and the 2009 stimulus package were unique examples of Mr. Obama working with Congress. The more "persistent pattern," Matthew Spalding recently wrote on the Heritage Foundation blog, is "disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making without—and often in spite of—congressional action." Put another way: Mr. Obama proposes, Congress refuses, he does it anyway. For example, Congress refused to pass Mr. Obama's Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some not here legally. So Mr. Obama passed it himself with an executive order that directs officers to no longer deport certain illegal immigrants. This may be good or humane policy, yet there is no reading of "prosecutorial discretion" that allows for blanket immunity for entire classes of offenders. Mr. Obama disagrees with federal law, which criminalizes the use of medical marijuana. Congress has not repealed the law. No matter. The president instructs his Justice Department not to prosecute transgressors. He disapproves of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, yet rather than get Congress to repeal it, he stops defending it in court. He dislikes provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, so he asked Congress for fixes. That effort failed, so now his Education Department issues waivers that are patently inconsistent with the statute. Similarly, when Mr. Obama wants a new program and Congress won't give it to him, he creates it regardless. Congress, including Democrats, wouldn't pass his cap-and-trade legislation. His Environmental Protection Agency is now instituting it via a broad reading of the Clean Air Act. Congress, again including members of his own party, wouldn't pass his "card-check" legislation eliminating secret ballots in union elections. So he stacked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with appointees who pushed through a "quickie" election law to accomplish much the same. Congress wouldn't pass "net neutrality" Internet regulations, so Mr. Obama's Federal Communications Commission did it unilaterally. In January, when the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Obama's new picks for the NLRB, he proclaimed the Senate to be in "recess" and appointed the members anyway, making a mockery of that chamber's advice-and-consent role. In June, he expanded the definition of "executive privilege" to deny House Republicans documents for their probe into the botched Fast and Furious drug-war operation, making a mockery of Congress's oversight responsibilities. This president's imperial pretensions extend into the brute force the executive branch has exercised over the private sector. The auto bailouts turned contract law on its head, as the White House subordinated bondholders' rights to those of its union allies. After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Justice Department leaked that it had opened a criminal probe at exactly the time the Obama White House was demanding BP suspend its dividend and cough up billions for an extralegal claims fund. BP paid. Who wouldn't? And it has been much the same in his dealings with the states. Don't like Arizona's plans to check immigration status? Sue. Don't like state efforts to clean up their voter rolls? Invoke the Voting Rights Act. Don't like state authority over fracking? Elbow in with new and imagined federal authority, via federal water or land laws. In so many situations, Mr. Obama's stated rationale for action has been the same: We tried working with Congress but it didn't pan out—so we did what we had to do. This is not only admission that the president has subverted the legislative branch, but a revealing insight into Mr. Obama's view of his own importance and authority. There is a rich vein to mine here for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Americans have a sober respect for a balance of power, so much so that they elected a Republican House in 2010 to stop the Obama agenda. The president's response? Go around Congress and disregard the constitutional rule of law. What makes this executive overreach doubly unsavory is that it's often pure political payoff to special interests or voter groups. Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.  

  When the Moore Family Lost Power Sweltering in the dark: a glimpse into America's future if the greens have their way. By STEPHEN MOORE Last weekend the Moore household was one of nearly a million homes in the Washington, D.C., area without power. The temperature was between 95 and 105 degrees and it was so humid you felt like you needed gills to breathe. Sure, I explained to my three children, we're miserable, but look at the bright side: Think how much we've reduced our carbon footprint! Consider it a life lesson in what it means to live green. That's small solace to youngsters who feel that life without Facebook, World of Warcraft, ESPN, Xbox, cellphones and air conditioning is like losing basic human rights. What, no microwave popcorn? Domino's Pizza isn't coming with a meat-eaters special? Someone call Amnesty International. On Saturday night we all sat on the couch with flickering candle light, sweating and talking. What did people do before the age of electricity?" my 11-year-old asks. "I would have killed myself," he moans. Electrical power is the central nervous system of our modern economy and our 21st-century lifestyles, and living without it for a few days reminds us how vulnerable we are to being sent back to a pre-Industrial Age. Yet every initiative by green groups is focused on reducing our access to electrical power—although they never admit that explicitly. This power outage was caused by a severe thunderstorm from Mother Nature, but I'm convinced that rolling brown outs are coming, thanks to the radical environmental movement that has taken hold of our body politic. Green groups, for example, have declared war on coal, which still produces about 40% of our electricity. The Obama administration is listening and slamming the brakes on coal production. This cheap and domestically abundant energy source is getting cleaner all the time, thanks to technological progress. But that doesn't stop a global-warming alarmists like James Hansen, a lead scientist at NASA, from likening trains carrying coal to the German "death trains" that transported the Jews to Nazi concentration camps. Natural gas is our second major source of electrical energy and thanks to the technological miracle of hydraulic fracturing we have hundreds of years of this clean-burning resource that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. But the Sierra Club is vowing to shut down natural gas too. Just last week North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue vetoed a fracking bill in the Tar Heel State (overridden on Tuesday thanks only to a state legislator's mistaken vote). She says she's protecting drinking water, but as we've discovered in Virginia, when you lose electricity you often lose access to potable water. Of course, Big Green hates oil and nuclear power too. That's why we're not drilling for oil in many parts of Alaska and on other energy-rich federal lands and waters, and why we're not building the Keystone XL pipeline. This is public policy that is not just anti-growth but dangerous to our health and safety. Sadly, kids are being bombarded in school at a very young age with propaganda that says to save the planet we have a moral obligation to conserve electricity and use "alternative energy." But safe and cheap electricity is what will save the planet from doom. If global warming is a threat, we are not going to be saved by building windmills or riding our bicycles to work, but by using advanced technology and electrical power to find ways to cool the planet. Higher standards of living, huge improvements in health and environmental conditions, and longer life expectancy are the fruits of economic growth that abundant electrical power makes possible. Go to the Internet and call up aerial photos of rich and capitalist South Korea and statist and desperately poor North Korea. South Korea is alive in light, North Koreans live in the dark. Limiting access to cheap electricity is one of the first actions of a successful tyrant. There's one more teachable moment from our three days in the dark. So many Americans—spoon-fed by a "go green" education system and media—live under the delusion that things were better in the past than they are now. Sure the economy is bad, but all we had to do is live for 72 hours without AC, TV, a dishwasher, a hair dryer and Google to appreciate how much progress has been made in the past 20, 30, and 50 years. Today a larger percentage of poor people have access to air conditioning than the average middle-class family did in 1960. For several days the Moore family was powerless. It was awful, but educational. If anything good has come out of this debacle, it is that our household has a new appreciation for how important it is that everyone have access to affordable and reliable sources of energy. The left says we can get our power from "clean, renewable" sources like wind and solar power. After tens of billions in subsidies, these sources provide 3% of our electricity. Anyone who thinks we can power our $15 trillion economy with wind and solar power is living in the dark—or wants the rest of us to as well. Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board. A version of this article appeared July 5, 2012, on page A9 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: When the Moore Family Lost Power.