ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090603

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

The purpose of our lives is to give birth to the best which is within us. -- Marianne Williamson



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"The Lord is kind and merciful, slow to get angry, full of unfailing love." (Psalm 145:8)

Justice delayed is often justice denied. For example, if a defense lawyer can keep postponing a murder case, evidence that is available in a speedy trial becomes useless. Witnesses may die or move away. The defense can challenge the validity of a witness's memory. Police departments misplace evidence.

However, as believers, it is important that we also recognize that we are saved precisely because God delays His justice. Whatever age you or I received God's promise of eternal life was more than enough time for God to have caused His just wrath to fall on us.

Dr. Cyril E. M. Joad, who for years was the head of the Philosophy Department at the University of London, probably did more to undermine the faith of the collegiate world of recent generations than almost any other. He believed that God was an impersonal part of the cosmos and that there was no such thing as sin.

However, before he died, Dr. Joad became convinced that the only explanation for sin was found in the Bible---and the only solution for sin was the cross of Jesus Christ. Like the apostle Paul, he became a zealous follower of Jesus. No doubt many of his followers turned to faith in God through his testimony and writings. God's long-suffering and incredible patience brought this skeptic to his knees at the cross.

None of us deserve even one day of life because of our sinful, depraved nature, so we should be grateful for a just God who delays His justice. When it comes to our sin, justice delayed works to our advantage.



"The Patriot Post"

"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." -- Alexander Hamilton



The BIG Lie

"[E]ven as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump. And this is a point I want to emphasize: If you buy a car, your investment in a more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of this standard will pay off in just three years. In three years' time you will have paid off the additional investment required. So this is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car. ... The fact is, everyone wins." -- Barack Obama



This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes." -- Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign



This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

"Norman! It's Hillary. What am I going to do with you Norman? You are working so hard for me, that I, I just don't know what to say anymore. I've never seen anybody who has been more loyal and more effective and really just having greater success supporting someone, uh, than you. Everywhere I go, you're there. If you're not, you're sending people to be part of my events. You know, we're going to win this campaign, Norman, because you single-handedly are going to make that happen. ... Lots of love. Bye-bye." -- Hillary Clinton on a March 2007 voicemail to Norman Hsu



From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

The Social Security Administration has sent out 52 million stimulus checks, and in its rush to meet the June distribution deadline, some of them ended up going to dead people (a.k.a. Obama voters). As reported by the New York City Fox News affiliate, Antoniette Santopadre of Long Island received a check made out to her father, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He had been a U.S. citizen but had not been in the United States since 1969. It is estimated that some 8,000 to 10,000 checks amounting to millions of dollars in taxpayer money went to dead people because Social Security had no record of their passing. Fair enough, but how do you explain mistakes like Santopadre's father, who was never even part of the Social Security system?



On Cross-Examination

"The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. ... But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. .... There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance." --former Vice President Dick Cheney in his speech opposing Obama http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090522/ap_on_go_ot/us_cheney_text



"Find Law"

Man Charged with Murder for Killing of Abortion Doctor in Church

KANSAS V. ROEDER
(Kansas Dist. Ct., Sedgwick Cty., Jun. 2, 2009) - Kansas prosecutors have charged Scott Roeder with first degree murder for allegedly gunning down abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31 at Tiller's church in Wichita. Read more...

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/kansas-roeder60209murder.html

Related Resources

• Suspect in doctor killing railed against abortion (AP)

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/06-02-2009/20090602002002_10.html

• Scott Roeder, Suspect in George Tiller Murder: Example of Domestic Terrorism?

(FindLaw's Blotter) http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/06/scott-roeder-suspected-in-george-tiller-murder-example-of-domestic-terrorism.html



"The Web"

Obama Wrong America Not Christian Nation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEF2-a6QBx8



Group urges IRS review of Liberty tax exemption

This is an effort by left-wing activist to attack and destroy any Christian value organization(s). Is this the type of "Change" so many voted for? - oyh

http://www.onenewsnow.com:80/Education/Default.aspx?id=545632

WASHINGTON, DC - The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State wants the Internal Revenue Service to review Liberty University's tax-exempt status because the Christian school revoked its recognition of a student-run Democratic club.

Americans United made the request in a letter to the IRS, arguing that Liberty's recognition of a Republican club offers GOP candidates support that is not available to Democratic candidates.

Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University law school, calls the complaint "frivolous" and says Liberty will ask the IRS to review whether Americans United should lose its tax-exempt status for regularly supporting Democratic Party positions.

Liberty's chancellor, Jerry Falwell Jr., said the club's recognition was revoked because the Democratic Party's abortion and homosexual rights positions are contrary to the university's principles. In an earlier statement, Falwell said "Liberty University is pro-life and believes that marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environment for children" -- and that the school "will not lend its name or financial support to any student group that advances causes contrary to its mission." (See earlier article)

http://onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=542038



Sotomayor Fits Obama's 'Get-Even' Power Approach

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:02 AM

By: David Limbaugh

http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Sotomayor_Obama_empathy/2009/06/02/220519.html

It amazes me that, for all the attention Judge Sonia Sotomayor has attracted for a racially charged statement in a 2001 speech, few are tying her attitude to President Barack Obama's.

Just as he knew precisely what his 20-year pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was about, and approved, he knew before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor what she is about, and approved.

In both cases, he just didn't want us to know.

During that 2001 speech at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Obama's apologists claim Sotomayor's statement was taken out of context. But the context of her prepared remarks makes the statement more — not less — incriminating.

The sentences preceding the statement were: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement."

First, it's important to note that she's not talking about trial judges, for example, who might be more or less lenient in their sentencing within the prescribed sentencing guidelines, but about appellate judges applying the law.

Next, Sotomayor is not just saying that, as imperfect human beings, judges sometimes rule differently because, try as they might to be impartial, no human being can be totally impartial.

Nor is she saying merely that women, based on their gender, rule differently from men or that those of different nationalities rule differently based on those differences, but that they should do so and that their rulings usually are superior because of it.

Are you getting this? She is saying women and minority judges should not even strive toward objectivity, impartiality, or blind justice. Rather, they should indulge their subjective experiences to apply the law with partiality aforethought, presumably to remedy past perceived or actual wrongs, even if objective application of the law does not warrant it. They should ignore or twist the law to achieve their desired policy result.

To the objection that Sotomayor was just theorizing in a harmless speech, I would respond by reminding you — again — of her pivotal role in that now-notorious concrete case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she summarily and cavalierly affirmed a district court's decision to cheat firefighters of their duly earned promotions because no black candidates passed the tests.

Talk about empathy all you want, but she and her judicial colleagues displayed no empathy for those who played by the rules. With strokes of their pens, they discriminated against successful candidates and caused them real damage by changing the rules after the fact — not to mention the damage their ruling might have caused to the quality of fire departments, whose job is to save lives and property.

Those ordinarily quickest to cry "racism" are expressing outrage that certain commentators have used that term to describe Sotomayor's statements and rulings that would be condemned universally if somebody such as, say, Trent Lott, made them. But the fact remains that Sotomayor apparently approves of reverse discrimination, and President Obama must have known that in advance.

Obama is a militant proponent of get-evenism, that is, using the power of the state — actually, misusing the power of the state — to even the score for minorities and/or the economically less fortunate.

After all, Obama is the one who said: "Solving our racial problems in this country will require concrete steps, significant investment. We have a lot of work to do to overcome the long legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. It can't be purchased on the cheap."

Are we to assume that the Civil War and the civil rights movement were "on the cheap"?

And Obama's Justice Department just inexplicably dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther members who intimidated voters and polling judges at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008. This, despite the fact that one civil rights lawyer said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen and the fact that the defendants didn't even bother to file pleadings with the court or raise any defenses to the charges.

Regardless of whether race played a factor in this dismissal, Obama has a long way to go before claiming he's a post-racial president.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and reverse racism is racism. None of us is exempted of our duty to rise above them.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" recently was released in paperback. To find out more about him, visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com .



Outlawing Opinion

by Chuck Norris

It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.

Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.

Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.

For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."

The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents' Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function? When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine -- which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation -- is right around the corner.

Government isn't the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean's -- who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up -- giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions, she's been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.

I don't care what your cause is. I don't care what your mission is. I don't care what the issue is. I don't care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen's constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone's offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?

It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!

When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we've drifted from our roots. Isn't it time we returned home to the Constitution?



Hate Speech

By: Charles Sproull

Here is a more remedial way to view the issue of "hate speech." If you feel pain in your body, the discomfort may seem like something bad; but actually it is good, because God created a nervous system in our bodies that uses pain as an indicator that something is wrong and needs to be corrected. You can either ignore pain by taking a sedative that numbs the body and never cures the pain, or find the source of the pain, be healed, and feel better quickly.

Likewise, when sinners feel emotional pain of guilt and conviction, this is good because God put this feeling in our conscience as an indicator that something is wrong in our hearts and lives, and needs to be corrected.

When a sick person is diagnosed with a particular disease (for example a flu that could be fatal) by doctor who cares about the health of that person's body, and is able to administer the right medical cure to heal him, if that person is afraid of the report or wants to remain sick, he could dishonestly accuse that doctor of "hate speech."

Likewise, when a sinner is diagnosed with a particular sin (for example homosexuality) by a preacher who cares about the health of his soul, and is able to minister the right spiritual/emotional cure that would deliver that sinner (1 Cor 6:11), if that person is afraid of the message or wants to remain a sinner and suffer the consequences, he might be tempted to dishonestly accuse that preacher of "hate speech."

I understand how uncomfortable the feeling of conviction is when exposed to the preaching of God's word. When my conscience was filled with guilt and fear of future judgment, I heard a preacher hatefully tell me "You are a sinner and on your way to hell." I already knew that, but hated that preacher for being a minister of condemnation. For many years I ignored that painful feeling and used sedatives of ignorance and physical and emotional pleasures, in a vain attempt to make me feel better.

But when I heard the gospel preached with love, by a (Minster of grace" (Eph 4:15,25,29), and had the courage and honesty to face spiritual reality and considered the eternal destiny of my soul, I found out that my feelings were explained in 2 Co 7:9-10. "The sorrow of the world worketh death" (including negative feelings of anger and hatred) in me. So I understand the feelings various sinners have when they accuse preachers of "hate speech."

But the good news is "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation" and leads us beyond bad feelings through the "strait gate" of the new birth (remission of sins and regeneration of the soul - Matt 7:13a,14, Acts 2:38), into the "narrow way" of life, with healing of the heart from those bad feelings. And God fills us with His love and "peace that passes understanding" and "joy unspeakable and full of glory" (see Gal 5:22-23, Phil 4:14, 1 Peter 1:8). How can this be considered as "hate speech"?

By their resistance, HRC activists demonstrate they are running from the darkness in Rom 1:27-28 and hiding behind Rom 2:1-3, and that they are "normal-phobic," "truth-phobic," "light phobic," "God-phobic," and "salvation-phobic." Also, feminists and people who view marriage and raising children as "slavery" are "not fully developed" (dictionary meaning of "immature") and appear to be "marriage-phobic," "responsibility-phobic" and "parenthood-phobic."

Even worse, according to police reports, many rampage killers have confessed ties to pornographic and violent entertainment, and to homosexuality.

So, to solve these problems, they don't need more laws, but they need healing from the Great Physician (they need to run from Rom 1:26-27 back to Rom 1:16-17). Just like a doctor accepts us just as we are, IF we want to be healed, so God accepts us just as we are, IF we accept Him as He is and are willing to receive the changes He wants to make in our hearts and lives, to deliver us and prepare us to live with Him in eternity.

Have a wonderful, free American day, be militant in a good-natured way.

Charles Sproull



"S.F. is going broke, whether you like it or not!"

As you see the salaries below, be sure to see "Jed and all his kin" of the Beverly Hillbillies "attachment".

http://myprops.org/content/S.F.-is-gonna-be-broke-whether-you-like-it-or-not/
This Link is located in the Public Channel Housing Bubble and Bear Links.

It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!

Are you wondering why California state and local governments are so broke? The City of San Francisco Salaries above could have something to do with it.

I should have gone into nursing... I had no idea they can make $350k, or that a manager of a city public transportation system can earn $325k. And don't forget the fire chief pulling in $270k.

"They're gonna be rich, whether you like it or not!!!"

And as you might expect, many California and University of California state workers earn even higher salaries. Holy Christ, how are that many Medical School Profs pulling in over $1 million (some close to $2 million)? Do you think Stephen Hawkings or Einstein made anything close to that (adjusted for inflation)??



"The e-mail Bag"

Pinocchio, Snow White and Superman

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day.

As they walk, they come across a sign:
"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."

"I am entering!" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd you do?"
" First Place !," said Snow White.

They continue walking and they see a sign:
"Contest for the strongest man in the world."

"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
" First Place ," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"

They continue walking when they see a sign:
"Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?"
"I'm entering," says Pinocchio. After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?" asked Pinocchio.