"Daily Motivations"
"You can tell the value of a man by the way he treats his wife, by the way he treats a subordinate, and by the way he treats someone who can do nothing for him." -- Ken Babcock
"The Patriot Post"
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." -- John Adams
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." -- Theodore Roosevelt
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." -- W. Somerset Maugham
"He is a man of sense who does not grieve for what he has not, but rejoices in what he has." -- Epictetus
"The Web"
"A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops." -- Gen. John J. Pershing
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is the only thing." -- Albert Schweitzer
"Alliance Defense Fund" - I often question what has happened to the Judeo-Christian community warriors? It appears so many have gone into hiding instead of becoming more aware and fighting the radical left-wing activity, rather than being a soldier for our Bible and our God. Do we not have the time? Should we make the time? Do we care? Do we really care, so long as we attend our Church activities? Are we going to allow our society to rot? So many daily issues are decaying (y)our communities. Christians must get involved to provide moral support, and resources, to defeat the immoral activity in (y)our own communities, as well as all over America. - oyh
Yale Herald: “Gay couples marry as campus Christians sit silent”
http://www.alliancealert.org:80/2008/12/01/yale-herald-gay-couples-marry-as-campus-christians-sit-silent/
Dennis Howe writes in the Yale Herald:
. . . “People don’t seem to have a lot of energy to spend time undoing our decision,” said [Conn. Supreme Court] Justice Palmer when asked in a Trumbull College Master’s Tea on Mon., Nov. 20. “We can say with certainty that there is going to be gay marriage in this state for the foreseeable future. Unlike in California, it’s not going away . . .
It goes without saying that religious principles can play no part in the Court’s decisions. At the same Trumbull Master’s Tea, Justice Joette Katz, who voted with the court majority in Kerrigan, said, in response to the fact that the Christian majority in Connecticut was opposed to same-sex marriage, “Its just not a factor.”. . .
First on the agenda, according to [Fr. Robert Beloin is the chaplain at St. Thomas More, Yale’s Catholic chapel and center], is for Catholics to understand that their faith offers no definitive answers on the social issues of the day . . .
[Sang Yun of Yale Students for Christ] agreed, arguing that social issues like gay marriage are often secondary to his organization’s larger purpose of promoting the Christian life in general. Christians’ silence on these issues, said Yun, “comes from not wanting to get embroiled in these important but ultimately secondary issues. You don’t want someone’s conception of Jesus to come down to a particular set of social views.” . . .
"FindLaw" - I want to see a UAW "contract" lowering union workers' pay and benefits, before any taxpayers' money, "bailout" and/or "loan". Do not provide taxpayers' funds prior to an UAW employees' contract. Also, it is amazing as to how much money Ford Motor Company gives to "homosexual and/or lesbian" organizations. Will Ford Motor Company continue to fund these organizations with taxpayers money? - oyh
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ford/fordbailoutplan-presentation120208.pdf
Ford Admits Mistakes, Wants Employees to Pay More, Vows New Focus
FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S BUSINESS PLAN TO CONGRESS
(Senate Banking Committee, Dec. 12, 2008) - Ford's business plan submitted to Congress acknowledges: "we have made our share of mistakes and miscalculations," and "became increasingly depending in the U.S. market on trucks and large SUVs." The automaker told the Senate Banking Committee that it now plans to have "leadership in fuel economy, innovation, quality, safety, and leading edge 'comfort and convenience technology.'" Other plans include the elimination of merit increases and bonuses, suspension of 401k matching, and passing on a greater share of benefit costs on to employees. By 2010, Ford says that 82% of its investment will be in cars and crossover vehicles, compared to 59% it spent in 2007. Read more...
"CREW"
CREW Cuts December 2008 / Issue #20
Speech or Debate Clause Takes Center Stage in Congressional Corruption Cases
In the past year, a much overlooked and under-discussed interpretation of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution has had a significant impact on congressional corruption investigations. Probes into the illegal conduct of Reps. William Jefferson (D-LA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) have been impeded by claims that this constitutional privilege prevents their prosecution.
The Speech or Debate Clause was intended to free legislators from executive and judicial oversight that realistically would threaten to control their conduct as legislators. Historically, the Clause has been interpreted narrowly to prevent members from being immunized from prosecution for crimes. All traditional investigative techniques were available to law enforcement agents probing congressional corruption, but legislative material could not be used as evidence against a member in a judicial proceeding.
After Rep. Jefferson claimed the search of his Rayburn House Office Building violated the Speech or Debate Clause, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that if any legislative information is viewed by investigators during a search, the admissibility of even non-legislative material is in doubt. In a decision strongly criticized by prosecutors, the Court reinterpreted the Clause to find that in addition to preventing the use of legislative material against a member of Congress, it also now prevents the disclosure of information.
Despite this decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss Rep. Jefferson's indictment on Speech or Debate Clause grounds, allowing the case against him to proceed. Rep. Jefferson has asked the full court to reconsider that decision.
Rep. Renzi has asked an Arizona district court to dismiss the indictment against him, also claiming it was obtained in violation of the Clause. Because the Speech or Debate Clause should not allow members to avoid being held accountable for their criminal acts, CREW has filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the United States in both the Jefferson and Renzi cases. See CREW briefs here
In contrast, on behalf of the House leadership, the House Counsel also filed a brief in the Renzi case, arguing that the indictment against Rep. Renzi should be dismissed because government agents improperly heard legislative material in violation of the Clause while conducting the investigation of Rep. Renzi.
By arguing for an interpretation of the Speech or Debate Clause that would immunize members of Congress from searches and seizures, Congress is attempting to protect members from criminal prosecution, rather than ensuring they comply with the law. If other courts adopt the position advanced by the House Counsel, members of Congress may never be held to account for their illegal actions.
A Speech or Debate Clause issue has also developed in the Senate. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is currently resisting a subpoena from lawyers requesting information about the senator's contacts with the Imperial Sugar Corporation and why he tried to dissuade victims' families from suing the company following a deadly explosion and fire at a Georgia refinery earlier this year. The Senate Counsel has filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming the Clause prevents him from responding. On November 18th, CREW publicly refuted Sen. Chambliss's argument and explained the Clause does not protect the senator from answering questions about meetings with victims' families.
In an era when misconduct among members of Congress is at an all-time high - 12 members are currently under federal investigation - Congress cannot be permitted to, on the one hand, tell the public that it has no tolerance for corruption, while on the other, use the Speech or Debate Clause to prevent prosecution of wrongdoing by members.
Learn more about Reps. Jefferson and Renzi, and Sen.. Chambliss
Read The Washington Post's Speech or Debate story
Read The Politico's story on Rep. Jefferson
Read the AFL-CIO's blog post on Sen. Chambliss
CREW Wins Right to Sue White House in Missing Email Case
On November 10th, the D.C. District Court upheld CREW's lawsuit challenging the White House's failure to properly store and recover millions of missing emails. The timely decision came as the Bush administration prepares to leave office without taking action, potentially rendering these emails irrecoverable.
CREW sued the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the Office of Administration (OA) and the Archivist in September 2007, alleging that they had violated the Federal Records Act by failing to recover emails lost between March 2003 and October 2005. EOP had stopped using the records management system that had been in place automatically backing up emails since 1994 and failed to install a replacement system. Although OA developed a plan to recover the missing emails, it was never implemented and no new electronic records management system has ever been put into place.
By refusing to dismiss CREW's suit, District Court Judge Henry Kennedy dealt a significant blow to the secretive Bush administration and delivered a huge victory for government transparency. The Court held that CREW has the right to sue to force the administration to restore the deleted emails. Judge Kennedy also held that federal courts have the authority to review the adequacy of the White House's recordkeeping practices, and that EOP, the Archivist and OA all have a public duty to prevent the destruction of federal records.
Learn more
Read Judge Kennedy's decision
Read The Washington Post story
Wilsons Vow to Take Case Against Bush Administration to Supreme Court
CREW represents former covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in their lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage and other unnamed officials. The suit alleges these officials revealed Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status to reporters in retaliation against Joe Wilson after he publicly disputed statements President Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address justifying the war in Iraq. CREW is working with the Wilsons to uncover the truth surrounding the leak, to ensure those officials are held accountable for their unconscionable actions, and to deter future government officials from endangering national security for political purposes. The case was dismissed by the district court, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and the full Circuit Court refused to reconsider the matter. As a result, CREW will ask the Supreme Court to review the matter in early 2009.
While the Court of Appeals' decision is disappointing, CREW and the Wilsons remain determined to press the case forward. There must be consequences when government officials abuse their power and endanger national security for political ends.
"RegularFolksUnlimited" - Working together, we must defeat the Liberals so-called "Fairness Doctrine". - oyh
Liberals Killed the Radio Star..."
Monday, November 24, 2008, 10:26 PM EST
Will Schultz
Free speech is crucial to freedom and democracy. Sorry to state the obvious, but there a number of liberal Democrats who are committed to controlling the flow of information in this country, and, specifically, limiting the flow from sources they don’t like. Apparently, to them, "free" speech is a great concept, so long as they approve of the speech in question. If they don’t, rather than just facing that opposing view head-on, in a fair manner, they attempt to suppress it, quash it, and stomp it out of existence.
Now that the White House and both houses of Congress are in the hands of liberal Democrats, they will push even harder to make this suppression of free speech a reality. As with so many other issues, whether they get their way is largely up to you–if we sit on our hands and do nothing, then the Left may get its way, with an Orwellian control of the information that reaches us through the airwaves [see also our earlier column, "2008 is 1984" ].
For example, that stalwart of "fairness," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), has compared conservative talk radio to pornography. Our reference to his sense of "fairness" is discussed more at length in our earlier column, What It Was, Was Slander. He and his colleagues didn’t seem too bothered by the lack of fairness they showed U. S. District Judge Charles Pickering when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush. But we won’t be surprised if Sen. Schumer and colleagues are in the forefront of the effort to bring back the [un]Fairness Doctrine and/or make other efforts to curtail free speech.
For any who haven’t heard, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was done away with during the Reagan Administration. That doctrine had basically required radio stations to give equal time to opposing views–in today’s world, that would mean if a radio station ran four hours of conservative talk shows, then it would have to run four hours of liberal talk shows. In effect, that could greatly reduce the quantity of conservative talk shows on the air, as well as diminish the station’s ad revenue, since advertisers might be less inclined to buy time on the much less-listened to liberal shows.
There is also a "back door" effort by which liberal Democrats may try to accomplish the same thing, while claiming that they aren’t "bringing back" the [un]Fairness Doctrine. That effort is called "localism," an FCC rule that requires radio and TV stations to cover the interests of the local community. Complying with that rule is a condition for keeping the station’s license. If the FCC under President Obama is so inclined, it may "define" localism to essentially encompass the same thing as the [un]Fairness Doctrine, which would discourage stations from carrying nationwide syndicated [conservative] programming, due to the requirement to properly serve the "local" interests. That "end run" is discussed further on newsmax.com and KeepRushontheAir.com.
To us, without question, either of the above would be an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech, and a chilling example of "Big Brother" government in action. The federal government has no business being in the business of dictating the programming of a radio station–call it what you want to, put whatever deceptive label on it you like, it is censorship, and an outright attack on free speech–led by liberals who are supposedly all about "guarding" our liberties and freedoms.
So, the first "attack" will be against conservative talk radio–limited to radio. But, if we are going to be consistent–and "fair"– then why have the "Fairness Doctrine" and the concept of "localism" restricted to just radio and local TV?
How about nationwide television? Since the national networks, save Fox News, are all "in the tank" for the Left, then how about some "fairness" there, huh? Just hand over ABC and CBS to the Republican Party, and let it control what gets broadcast on those networks, since they and the others, except Fox, are basically the PR mouthpiece for liberal Democrats. Sorry, Charlie (Gibson). And, you, too, Katie. Move it on over, the conservatives are taking over your anchor chairs. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
Newspapers? Gee, most of them lean left, too. A whole bunch of them, in fact. That means just loads of them will now relinquish control to the GOP, and conservative columnists will finally get the opportunity to be read in previously-unreachable quantities. No more Obama "puff pieces" in those papers. Magazines? Same deal.
We’re not sure what will happen to all of those out-of-work liberal "journalists," but, hey, "fairness" can have a heavy price, right? At least a few of them may be able to find jobs in liberal radio, since that market will have to increase as part of this "fairness" plan.
The internet? Hey, we can’t leave out the fastest-growing media communications method of all, can we? But, how do we do that? Make all the conservative websites list a bunch of liberal sites that the reader can go to for an "opposing view"? And make the liberals do vice versa? Who decides which are which? Which ones make the "lists"? Who decides that? Who plays "hall monitor" for all of that?
Gosh, we guess that means we’ll have to have–you guessed it, more federal regulation and a brand-spanking new federal agency to "oversee" all this, since the FCC won’t be big enough to handle this new responsibility. How many billions a year will that cost? Doesn’t matter, not when we are talking about preserving "fairness." Besides, we are confident that our liberal friends in Congress will come up with a myriad of new taxing proposals to finance this huge new undertaking.
Then, of course, there will be the "bail-out." What bail-out, you say? C’mon, think it through. Since all those radio stations will have to drop much of their conservative talk lineup, to even it up with liberal talk shows, their ratings will take an absolute nosedive, which means their ad revenues will go flat. That’s ok, since Uncle Sam is bailing out so many others, we can just add WKRP in Cincy to the list, along with numerous other radio stations all across the country. Then, our government will own radio stations, along with the insurance companies, brokerage firms, banks and other entities it now owns.
Imagine that conservatives controlled the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the "mainstream" media, but liberals predominated on talk radio. Those conservatives then decide it would be a good thing to institute the "Fairness Doctrine" or via "localism" require all those radio stations to give equal time to conservative sources.
Liberals would be screaming bloody murder, shouting protests from the rooftops, and rightfully so. "Censorship!" "An attack on free speech!" "Ruthlessly oppressive Big Brother government!" Yes, we would really be hearing it–so long as the liberals had media outlets that would actually cover their protests, instead of ignoring them, or bashing them for speaking up.
So, why is it any different now? Its "OK" to suppress "conservative" free speech, but not "liberal" free speech? The U. S. Government is supposed to be allowed to dictate to privately-owned radio stations what they can and cannot broadcast–on partisan, political lines? Yet, National Public Radio, largely funded by our tax dollars, is free to roam as far to the left as they like, totally unfettered?
We have a feeling this will be one of a number of issues that "blue dog" Democrats (i.e., moderates and conservatives) will need to "break rank" with the powers that be in their party, in order to see that common sense–and what is best for our country–actually prevails. If the non-liberal Democrats, independents, Republicans and other conservatives stand together on this issue, then Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and company will have to back off. Free speech will then reign, instead of government-dictated censorship.
That coalition of common sense will have to be active on other issues as well, if things such as "drill, baby, drill" are to become reality.
Otherwise, let’s face it. There are a bunch of people out there that would rather have their impressionable children mindlessly singing "songs of praise" to Obama than listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. They actually think that listening to Glenn, Sean and Rush is harmful, while chanting those mantras is beneficial. If we don’t wake up and stay focused, they may get their way.
"Free speech" isn’t free if one side of an issue is successful in suppressing the views of the other side–that is called oppression, censorship, tyranny, and other such words, but "free" is not among them.
Neither is "fair."
"The email Bag"
Psalm 55:22 --- you really need to read this.
'Friends are God's way of taking care of us.' This was written by a Metro Denver Hospice Physician:
I was driving home from a meeting this evening about 5, stuck in traffic on Colorado Blvd., and the car started to choke and splutter and die - I barely managed to coast, cursing, into a gas station, glad only that I would not be blocking traffic and would have a somewhat warm spot to wait for the tow truck. It wouldn't even turn over. Before I could make the call, I saw a woman walking out of the 'quickie mart ' building, and it looked like she slipped on some ice and fell into a gas pump, so I got out to see if she was okay.
When I got there, it looked more like she had been overcome by sobs than that she had fallen; she was a young woman who looked really haggard with dark circles under her eyes. She dropped something as I helped her up, and I picked it up to give it to her. It was a nickel.
At that moment, everything came into focus for me: the crying woman, the ancient Suburban crammed full of stuff with 3 kids in the back (1 in a car seat), and the gas pump reading $4.95.
I asked her if she was okay and if she needed help, and she just kept saying 'don't want my kids to see me crying,' so we stood on the other side of the pump from her car. She said she was driving to California and that things were very hard for her right now. So I asked, 'And you were praying?' That made her back away from me a little, but I assured her I was not a crazy person and said, 'He heard you, and He sent me.'
I took out my card and swiped it through the card reader on the pump so she could fill up her car completely, and while it was fuelling, walked to the next door McDonald's and bought 2 big bags of food, some gift certificates for more, and a big cup of coffee. She gave the food to the kids in the car, who attacked it like wolves, and we stood by the pump eating fries and talking a little. She told me her name, and that she lived in Kansas City . Her boyfriend left 2 months ago and she had not been able to make ends meet. She knew she wouldn't have money to pay rent Jan 1st, and finally in desperation had finally called her parents, with whom he had not spoken in about 5 years. They lived in California and said she could come live with them and try to get on her feet there.
So she packed up everything she owned in the car. She told the kids they were going to California for Christmas, but not that they were going to live there. I gave her my gloves, a little
hug and said a quick prayer with her for safety on the road. As I was walking over to my car, she said, 'So, are you like an angel or something?' This definitely made me cry. I said, 'Sweetie, at this time of year angels are really busy, so sometimes God uses regular people.' It was so incredible to be a part of someone else's miracle. And of course, you guessed it, when I got in my car it started right away and got me home with no problem. I'll put it in the shop tomorrow to check, but I suspect the mechanic won't find anything wrong. Sometimes the angels fly close enough to you that you can hear the flutter of their wings...
Psalms 55:22 'Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee. He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.'
My instructions were to pick four people that I wanted God to bless, especially for the months in 2008 and I picked you.
Please pass this to four people you want to be blessed and a copy back to me. Here is the prayer:
'Father, I ask You to bless my children, grandchildren, friends, relatives and email buddies reading this right now. Show them a new revelation of your love and power. Holy Spirit, I ask You to minister to their spirit this very moment. Where there is pain, give them Your peace and mercy. Where there is self doubt, release a renewed confidence through Your grace, In Jesus' precious name. Amen.'
No comments:
Post a Comment