ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090604

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

If there is to be any peace it will come through being, not having. -- Henry Miller



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"He is my refuge, a rock where no enemy can reach me." (Psalm 62:7)

A story is told of a shipwrecked sailor who clung to a rock in great danger until the tide went down. Later a friend asked him, "Didn't you shake with fear when you were hanging on the rock?"

He simply replied, "Yes, but the rock didn't."

Life and its uncertainties may shake us, but God - who is the Rock of Ages - does not move. If we cling to Him, His strength sustains us.

Since God never changes, His character is constant. Unlike us, He does not compromise or change His values. He cannot be manipulated or persuaded to go against His Word. He does not have a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality where He will comfort us one moment and snap at us the next.

God's constancy also gives us eternal significance. God's plan existed at the beginning of creation and remains the same today. It unfolds in stages, which may give us the impression of change, but His original design has always been consistent. From the day God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God's hand has been leading and guiding His people. And we are part of His plan!

Paul wrote to the believers in Ephesus, "For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so that we can do the good things He planned for us long ago" (Ephesians 2:10). As God's people, we are His loved ones whom He has planned from the beginning to bless and to live with forever!



"The Patriot Post"

"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." -- John Adams

"[L]et us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us re-consecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain." -- Dwight Eisenhower

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." -- Sir Winston Churchill

"No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave." -- Calvin Coolidge



"Liberty Counsel"

From the Desk of: Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel -

The article below, "The President’s Radical Court Pick", will substantiate reasonable evidence to ask all US Senators to vote "NO" on David Hamilton to US Court of Appeals.

I have just been informed that tomorrow (Thursday) the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin formal consideration of David Hamilton -- the notorious "No to Jesus, Yes to Allah" judge nominated by Barack Obama for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to vote tomorrow -- a key vote that could determine whether Hamilton gets confirmed by the full Senate!

As you may know, in 2005 this former ACLU activist ruled that prayers "using Christ's name or title" were sectarian and therefore unconstitutional.

To make matters worse, in a post-judgment motion for this same case Hamilton ruled that prayers said to "Allah" were acceptable! So, according to Obama's first judicial nominee, prayers to Jesus are unconstitutional but prayers to Allah are just fine!

Simply put, Hamilton said "No" to Jesus and "Yes" to Allah!

Immediate Fax and Phone Barrage Needed!

I need your help. This announcement has come suddenly and very quietly.

I am asking you to take a moment right now to fax and phone the Judiciary Committee and your two Senators urging them to
oppose Hamilton's confirmation.

Please... Take a moment right now to schedule your faxes by going here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=19398&CID=297&RID=20856035

Of course, you can always send your own faxes. We have provided all the information on the above link.

Once you have scheduled your faxes...

Please call your two Senators.

To access the phone numbers for key members of the Judiciary
Committee, go here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=19399&CID=297&RID=20856035

Thank you for taking action with me!

Mat Staver



The President’s Radical Court Pick

By: Vasko Kohlmayer

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34632

President Obama has made a number of controversial appointments during his first 100 days in office, but perhaps none more so than activist judge and ACLU alumnus David Hamilton. In a nomination that may be voted on as early as this week, the president has chosen Hamilton to sit on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, an important Chicago-based bench whose jurisdiction extends over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The appointment serves as an early warning that Obama’s judicial nominees, presented as “moderates,” will be anything but.

Born in 1957, Hamilton began his judicial career when he was nominated by President Bill Clinton for a District Court in Indiana. It was a controversial choice: Hamilton had no previous judicial experience and the American Bar Association rated him as “not qualified.” Nevertheless, a compliant US Senate approved the selection and Hamilton took his position in October 1994.

During his tenure as a federal judge, Hamilton issued a number of disturbing rulings. In November 2005, for example, he ruled that the Indiana State Legislature should not be permitted to open its sessions with Christian prayers. Hamilton wrote that such prayers violate the First Amendment and ordered that all invocations offered in that body should “refrain from using Christ’s name or title.” Hamilton argued that using such terms would amount to promoting the Christian religion and thus run afoul of the First Amendment: "All are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings. Those who wish to participate in a practice of official prayer must be willing to stay within constitutional bounds.”

But while Hamilton judged the use of Christ’s name to be unlawfully “sectarian,” he Hamilton saw no problem if a Muslim cleric should choose to invoke the name of “Allah.” Hamilton offered this tortured reasoning to justify this conclusion:

The Arabic word “Allah” is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language’s terms in addressing the God...[T]he court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.

Thus, if Hamilton had his way, it would be perfectly legal to invoke “Allah,” but it would be a violation of the Constitution to use the name of Christ in the Indiana General Assembly. Not everyone agreed with this preferential conclusion. Indeed, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals – the very court for which Hamilton now stands nominated – overturned his decision.

The 2005 case was not Hamilton’s first contentious ruling. In 2003, Hamilton struck down an abortion-related provision known as the “informed-consent law.” The law required that abortion clinics simply provide women with information about alternatives to abortion 18 hours before the procedure was to take place. That went too far for Hamilton, who ruled the law unconstitutional – even though the Supreme Court had earlier upheld a materially identical law in a different case (the Casey decision). The 7th Circuit court once again overturned Hamilton and issued a strongly-worded rebuke, noting that no other judge in America had gone to such an extreme: “No court anywhere in the country has held any similar law invalid...”

Last year, David Hamilton ruled that an amendment to an Indiana state law that required convinced sex offenders to provide the authorities with personal information such as e-email addresses or online user names was unconstitutional. Hamilton based his conclusion on the argument that “the ability of the individual to retreat into his home and therefore to be free from unreasonable intrusion by the government stands at the very core of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.” In his reasoning, Hamilton seemed to have overlooked the fact that the person in question was not just any individual but a convicted sex offender, and that, depending on the nature of their crime, it may be appropriate for sex offenders to forfeit some measure of privacy.

Until now, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned most of Hamilton’s more extreme rulings. The fact that the vast majority of cases before that court never make it further means that the court stands as the final authority on many important cases. But now, President Obama and his advisers have figured out how to circumvent this inconvenience. They will simply appoint Hamilton to the very court that served to keep him in check. Thus, with Hamilton’s ascension to the bench, we could see a dramatic shift toward left-wing judicial activism in an important part of America’s heartland.

Not that one could perceive this from the statement the president issued when announcing his nomination. “Judge Hamilton has a long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions,” President Obama declared, adding that Hamilton would be a “thoughtful and distinguished addition” to the 7th Circuit.

As if on cue, the New York Times ran a prominently placed story describing Hamilton as “a highly regarded federal trial judge” and presenting him as a restrained jurist who represents “some of his state’s traditionally moderate strain.” Apart from the awkwardness of that description – how exactly does one represent only “some” of a “strain”? – it was belied by Hamilton’s far-from-moderate judicial record.

That Hamilton is no moderate is further evidenced by his professional associations. For example, he is a board member of the Indiana Chapter of the ACLU and a fundraiser for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN). In light of this, it should come as no surprise that the nomination of this “moderate” has generated a wave of enthusiasm among various leftist groups. People for the American Way, the far-Left organization headed by Norman Lear, called Hamilton “an ideal choice” for the 7th Circuit Seat.

The most disturbing aspect of Hamilton’s nomination is what it suggests about the nature of judicial appointees under the Obama administration. The New York Times quoted one senior administration official as saying that the Hamilton pick is “a kind of signal” about the kind of nominees President Obama will choose. If true, it is the clearest indication yet that the president intends to reshape America’s judiciary in a radical way. David Hamilton may be just the beginning.



"The Web"

The Universe - Now, view it some Biblical thoughts. - oyh

http://pjknight..kol.co.nz/universe/universe.html



Calif. District Creates Primary School Gay Curriculum

Monday, June 1, 2009 3:24 PM

By: Rick Pedraza

http://www.newsmax.com/us/school_district_same_sex/2009/06/01/220249.html?s=al&promo_code=80BF-1

Elementary school teachers in Alameda, Calif., will introduce lesson plans to their educational curriculum beginning next year that address gay and lesbian issues, KCBS News in San Francisco reports.

Kindergarten through grade 5 students throughout the county will be exposed to same-sex educational material aimed at promoting tolerance and inclusiveness.

The curriculum –– which will include lessons to introduce students to “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues –– will be designed to discourage bullying and teasing based on gay and lesbian stereotypes. The plan will be implemented despite objections by parents who complain children are too young to be exposed to the material.

Many parents are condemning the lesson plan as sex education in disguise and are angered that they will not be allowed to exempt their children from the lessons. Opponents decry the curriculum plan as an effort to advance the gay, lesbian and transgendered agenda.

Those opposed to sexual orientation lessons for children are so upset they are threatening to sue the school board, ABC News reports. Promoting gay, lesbian and sexual orientation should be a parents' rights issue, parents say, and is not an appropriate topic for school children.

The Alameda school district's legal counsel, however, recommended the plan because the curriculum does not deal with health or sex education, which are topics that do require opt-out provisions.

“It was the opinion of our legal counsel that this curriculum was not health or sex education curriculum,” school board president Mike McMahon told CNS New.

“If a student responds that one family in the book is made up of a mother, a father, and two children and a cat, you may acknowledge that some families look like this, but ask students for other examples of what a family can look like.”

School Board Member Trish Spencer, who voted against the plan, said she worries that its implementation could lead to the harassment of students who have religious objections to homosexuality. She cited that bullying due to religion is a bigger problem for the district than bullying based on homosexuality.

Also adamantly opposed to the plan is Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

“This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values,” Thomasson, told CNS New.

Last month, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal that passed in November.

The Alameda school board said it will review its decision to implement the curriculum at the end of next year’s school session.



Where did morality come from?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/AnswersWeekly/2008/0419.html

Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This isn’t to say that evolutionists are somehow less moral than anyone else. Most of them adhere to a code of behavior. Like the biblical creationist, they do believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in right and wrong within their own worldview. Right and wrong are Christian concepts which go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, therefore, the evolutionist is being irrational; for he must borrow biblical concepts which are contrary to his worldview.

The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Psalm 24:1) and thus, God has the right to make the rules. So, an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. But if the Bible were not true, if human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of mindless chemical processes, then why should we hold to a universal code of behavior? Could there really be such concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?

Some might respond, “Well, I believe in right and wrong, and I also believe in evolution; so, obviously they can go together.” But this does not follow. People can be irrational; they can profess to believe in things that are contrary to each other. The question is not about what people believe to be the case, but rather what actually is the case. Can the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the biblical God? To put it another way, is morality justified in an evolutionary worldview?



"The e-mail Bag"

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT

You have to be old enough to remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully appreciate this. For those of us (like me) who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read on...

If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, "Who's on First?" might have turned out something like this:

ABBOTT: Super Duper Computer Store. Can I help you?

COSTELLO: Thanks I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer.

ABBOTT: Mac?

COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.

ABBOTT: Your computer?

COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.

ABBOTT: Mac?

COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou

ABBOTT: What about Windows?

COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?

ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?

COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the Windows?

ABBOTT: Wallpaper.

COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.

ABBOTT: Software for Windows?

COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What do you have?

ABBOTT: Office.

COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?

ABBOTT: I just did.

COSTELLO: You just did what?

ABBOTT: Recommend something.

COSTELLO: You recommended something?

ABBOTT: Yes.

COSTELLO: For my office?

ABBOTT: Yes.

COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?

ABBOTT: Office.

COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!

ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.

COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?

ABBOTT: Word.

COSTELLO: What word?

ABBOTT: Word in Office.

COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.

ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.

COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?

ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W".

COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight answers. What about financial bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?

ABBOT T: Money.

COSTELLO: That's right What do you have?

ABBOTT: Money.

COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?

ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.

COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?

ABBOTT: Money.

COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?

ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.

COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?

ABBOTT: One copy.

COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?

ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.

COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?

ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!

A few days later.

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?

COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?

ABBOTT: Click on "START"............



HIGH SCHOOL – 1957 vs. 2009

Scenario 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.

1957 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2009 – School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.


Scenario 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 – Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2009 – Police called and SWAT team arrives — they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.


Scenario 3:

Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.

1957 – Jeffrey sent to the Principal’s office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2009 – Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.


Scenario 4:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..

1957 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.

2009 - Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has an affair with the psychologist.


Scenario 5:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 – Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.

2009 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.


Scenario 6:

Pedro fails high school English.

1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2009 - Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro’s English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.


Scenario 7:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.

1957 - Ants die.

2009 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents — and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.
Johnny’s dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.


Scenario 8:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2009 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison… Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy..


All this goes to show how politically incorrect we have become. We have lot all sense of "Common Sense".