ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090618

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

Little value comes out of the belief that discipline and punishment go hand in hand. -- Eric Harvey



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"He heals the brokenhearted, binding up their wounds." (Psalm 147:3)

How could Paul and Silas sing praises to God in the depths of a stinking, cold Roman prison? Their backs were raw because they had been beaten with whips and rods.

Their feet were in stocks and the jailer had threatened to execute them if they tried to escape. Paul and Silas could sing because God was with them in the inner dungeon while they were hurting.

The psalmist writes, "The LORD is close to the brokenhearted; He rescues those who are crushed in spirit." (Psalm 34:18) Whether we experience physical, emotional, or mental pain, the Holy Spirit will comfort us and give us strength and courage to triumph over our hurts.

Several Campus Crusade for Christ staff members have lost small children to accidental death or disease. They tell me that it is one of the most agonizing crises that a person can ever go through. Tears flow for months; muscles are sore from sobbing. Many unbelieving couples break up afterwards due to guilt and blame. But many followers of Christ testify, "That was the most difficult thing I have ever experienced, but I have to tell you that God was so very near to me that I felt His presence like I have never felt Him before."

Although Scripture is clear that God is present everywhere at once, parents who have lost children give evidence that God manifests His presence in special ways at particular times of need. In 2 Corinthians 1:3-4, Paul assures us, "[God] is the source of every mercy and the God who comforts us. He comforts us in all our troubles so that we can comfort others."



"The Patriot Post"

"If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virture to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." -- Federalist No.. 57 (Alexander Hamilton or James Madison), 1788

"His Example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read." -- John Adams, message to the U.S. Senate on George Washington's death, December 19, 1799

We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give. -- Winston Churchill



"The Web"

Our Men In Harms Way

http://www.adusa.com/OurMen1.htm



Back to ACORN General Hospital

By Carol Peracchio

Guess who's going to be much better off thanks President Obama's health care scheme?

I read a fascinating survey recently. According to Rasmussen,

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say every one in the United States should have free health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% disagree.

Wait a minute! Obama says we all want nationalized healthcare now, if not sooner. A survey asking if everyone should have free healthcare is like asking if Christmas should come again this year. Yet, it appears more Americans actually favor the evil healthcare status quo.

The survey had another shocker:
However, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 27%), Americans reject free health care for all if it means changing their own coverage and joining a program administered by the government.

America, I'm sorry. For months I have been convinced that you are uninformed, uninterested in the survival of the greatest healthcare system in the world. But I was wrong. Most of you get it. "Free" healthcare is too big a risk if it means giving up your private insurance for ObamaCare. The survey results are especially stunning because the healthcare the participants reject is free. Americans love the word "free."
I myself joined a gourmet coffee of the month club to get the Free $98.00 Value Coffee Maker. I discovered something: Even the best coffee in the world tastes horrible after passing through a free coffeemaker. And it would appear most Americans realize that the best medical care in the world will stink once it passes through a "free" healthcare system.

But survey results aside, television and newspapers are replete with stories and images of America in a healthcare crisis. Where does the media find all those average Joes demanding a government-run system? I think I found the answer at Obama's health care website.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page, past the heart-wrenching tales of health insurance lost, and the frightening predictions of how we're all about to die, or if we're very, very lucky, merely go bankrupt. Check out the video link of HHS Secretary Sebelius at the AFSCME Nurses Association.

To the average nurse, the term "nurses association" brings to mind the American Nurses Association (ANA), or the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN): professional organizations based on a particular nursing specialty, such as the operating room or ER. I'd never heard of the AFSCME Nurses Association. I couldn't think of any nursing acronym that would fit those letters, so I googled them.

It's a union!

The AFSCME nurses' union, United Nurses of America, (UNA) has 60,000 members, both RNs and LPNs. In America today there are approximately 2.9 million RNs. There were over 730,000 LPNs in America in 2008. Therefore, UNA represents 1.6 percent of America's licensed nurses. The UNA is the Obama administration's favorite nursing go-to group for healthcare reform cover. And they're quite the resource when crafting those oh-so-important media images of nursing support for socialized medicine.

Unlike 98.4% of you nurses out there, I have actually belonged to a union. Years ago, after accepting a new hospital position I was filling out the obligatory HR paperwork. Among the forms was an index card.

"What's this?" I asked.

"It's for the union."

I handed it to her. "You don't understand. I am an RN. A professional. I won't be joining a union."

She handed the card back to me. "No, you don't understand. This is a closed shop. Fill out the card."

Except for irritation at the dues deducted from my paycheck, the union had no effect on my life. Then, a few months later, the hospital informed us that they were in dire financial straits and needed concessions from all employees. So, I made plans to attend my one and only union meeting.

We gathered to hear how our union was going to fight for our rights. The representative got up to the microphone and said -- I swear I am not making this up -- "We've looked over what they're asking and we recommend you take it." End of meeting.

Thankfully, a better position at a non-union hospital became available and my brief stint as a union nurse was over. Until now. Because as I look over Obama's healthcare plan, and the AFSCME and SEIU websites, it's obvious that the service employees unions are all over Obama's health care "reform."

Some of the similarities are humorous. For example, at Obama's website there is a frightening report titled The Costs of Inaction. Over at the SEIU healthcare website is an article titled "The Cost of Doing Nothing." However, things turn serious when one starts clicking on the links.

My first article for American Thinker was titled "Welcome to ACORN General Hospital." I wrote that Barack and Michelle's healthcare vision seemed to be hospitals as agents for community organizing. At the time I thought I was indulging in a little hyperbole. Little did I know that I was right on the money.

For example, at the SEIU website is a link to the Healthcare Equality Project:

The Healthcare Equality Project (HEP) is a national partnership between nationwide and community-based organizations, faith networks, students, parents and individuals working to achieve comprehensive health care reform that will eliminate healthcare disparities once and for all. We want to ensure that healthcare reform efforts - beyond simply expanding insurance coverage - become an engine for reducing the unfair, pervasive and life-threatening healthcare disparities that plague women, racial, ethnic and other minorities.
Guess who's featured on the Partner Organizations list? That's right -- ACORN!

At the AFSCME Health Care web page is a link to Health Care for America NOW! a "grassroots" organization. Among their goals:

We are fighting for a uniquely American solution that gives you a guarantee of coverage and real choice: keep your private insurance plan or join a new public health insurance plan so you are no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.
That reads like it was downloaded from the President's teleprompter. And once again, prominent on the steering committee is ACORN, along with SEIU, AFSCME, and the AFL-CIO.

So what is the unions' goal for American healthcare? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation on March 19th, 2009:

The Service Employees International Union and the California Nurses Association on Wednesday announced an agreement under which they will seek to unionize employees at hospitals nationwide and promote expansion of health insurance to all U.S. residents, the New York Times reports. Under the agreement, the unions will focus on efforts to unionize employees of larger hospital systems, where nurses would join CNA and other workers would join SEIU.

It brings to mind a mental picture of the AXIS powers dividing up the healthcare world, doesn't it? And why not? If the UAW gets to have controlling interest in the American auto industry, why shouldn't AFSCME, SEIU, and ACORN be allowed to run the 14% of GDP currently known as the American healthcare system? Millions and millions and millions of new dues-paying members from countless communities ripe for organizing. All without the hassle of passing card check.

Hey, nurses: Just fill out the card.

Carol Peracchio is a registered nurse.



Top Ten Wasteful Stimulus Projects

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/16/top-ten-wasteful-stimulus-projects/

Posted in Enterprise and Free Markets. http://blog.heritage.org/category/enterprise-and-free-markets/

Courtesy of Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) new report, “100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion”, http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?

FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=59af3ebd-7bf9-4933-8279-8091b533464f here are the Top Ten most dubious http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stimulus16-2009jun16,0,7085006.story Obama stimulus projects:

“Free” Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, Oklahoma

FutureGen: The Stimulus Earmark that Wasn’t, Becomes the Costliest Pork Project in History

Little-Used “Shovel-Ready” Bridges in Rural Wisconsin Given Priority Over Widely Used Structurally Deficient Bridges

$800,000 for little-used Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport to repave a back-up runway; the “Airport for Nobody” Has Already Received Tens of Millions in Taxpayer dollars

$3.4 Million for Wildlife “Eco-Passage” in Florida; Project Still May Take Years to Finish

Nevada Non-Profit Gets Weatherization Contract After Being Fired For Same Work

Non-Existent Oklahoma Lake in Line for Over $1 Million To Construct a New Guardrail

Taxpayers Taken for a Ride: Nearly $10 Million to be Spent to Renovate a Century Old

Train Station that Hasn’t Been Used in 30 Years

Ten Thousand Dead People Get Stimulus Checks, Social Security Administration Blames a Tough Deadline

Town of Union, New York, Encouraged to Spend Money It Did Not Request For a

Homelessness Problem It Does Not Have



ACLU Loses Effort to Keep Non-Americans on Voter Rolls

How can anyone support the ACLU? This evidence is solid that the ACLU supports the destruction of a free election process in America. Any member or supporter of the ACLU should disqualify any candidate for any state or federal judiciary. May God Bless America! - oyh

The Supreme Court has rejected the ACLU appeal of a Circuit Court decision upholding the Georgia Voter ID law. This law requires new voters to present documentation to show they are both citizens and residents. The ACLU attacked this law, and similar laws in other states, claiming that such laws discriminated against the poor and persons of color.

Most of the facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Atlanta Constitution on 9 June 2009. The article reports that the US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld Georgia's voter ID law. In short, that law required new voters in Georgia to present photo ID when voting, and presenting specified documents to show that they are citizens of the US and of Georgia, to obtain those IDs.

The ACLU has fought long and hard in both state and federal courts in Georgia to prevent this law from going into effect, claiming that the law "discriminated" against the poor, and persons of color. They even had the nerve to say that this law discriminated against Mexicans because the vast majority of those denied the right to vote in Georgia because they were not citizens, were Mexicans.

This will probably contribute to the defeat of ACLU cases against similar laws in other states, where the legislatures have reached the conclusion that methods should be employed to assure that only Americans vote in American elections. Only a few states have considered such laws to date.

This decision may have a broader impact than just voter ID cases. A separate case has already been argued and is awaiting decision in the Supreme Court, on whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains constitutional. Specifically, that case asked whether Section V of that Act remains constitutional. That Section gives the Department of Justice the power to pre-clear changes in the election laws of several specified southern states which had patterns of racial discrimination a century ago.

Patterns of registration, voting, and election of persons of color all suggest that Section V is obsolete and should now be struck as unconstitutional.

The argument in the other case, and the Court€™s declination to take this Georgia case (which required only four Justices to vote to take the case), both suggest that Section V is probably going to be struck from the law.

That would question the legitimacy of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision under Section V to bar administratively the Georgia ID law because it "discriminates" against "persons of color." When any government official takes a position that the Supreme Court has recently rejected, that official’s decision is not long for this world.

General Holder's decision in the Georgia case is the exact opposite of one in the last two weeks not to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who were video-taped as they "policed" a Philadelphia precinct in uniform last fall. One was armed with a nightstick. Putting those two cases together, it is Holder's view that the law protects illegal voting by persons of color. But it does not protect "persons of no color" (would that be the correct way of referring to Caucasians?) when they are threatened by persons of color.

The Supreme Court seems to have a far better grip on what is discrimination, and what is simple, common sense, than does General Holder.

Source on the Net: http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/06/09/vote0609.html



Farewell, War on Terror

by Bill O'Reilly

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2009/06/13/farewell,_war_on_terror?page=full&comments=true

Did you notice in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world last week that President Obama did not use the word "terrorism"? Interesting in light of reports that some in the Obama administration no longer refer to actions against al-Qaida and the Taliban as the "war on terror," instead calling them an "overseas contingency operation." But why? What is the reasoning behind this?

Apparently, the president believes that in order to forge a "new start" with the Muslim world, America must spotlight the common ground between the two cultures. Emphasizing atrocities committed by terrorists under the banner of Islam obviously does not aid that strategy. So out with the war on terror, in with the spirit of cooperation.

Some conservatives find this appalling. They say it shows weakness on the part of Obama. I disagree. As long as the United States stays strong on the battlefields and in the security area, diplomatic euphemisms don't mean very much. Obama wants more friends in the Arab world, and he's willing to give Muslims a rhetorical break to get them.

That, of course, pleases the American left, and herein lies a problem. The liberal media are now actively downplaying Muslim terrorism, and that was vividly demonstrated last week when an American Muslim in Arkansas shot two soldiers. One of them, 24-year-old Pvt. William Long, was killed.

The cold-blooded murder of Long by Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Muhammad, was a shocking story. But if you were watching Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," you missed it, as Couric did not mention the murder. On ABC, Charles Gibson ignored the story, as well. On NBC, Brian Williams spent less than two minutes on the situation.

But the network news operations and most other national media enthusiastically covered the murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller by a pro-life zealot. According to a new study by the Pew Research group, Tiller's murder received 90 percent more news coverage than the crime against Long. Unbelievable.

It is flat-out wrong for the news media to under-report a story where an American Muslim guns down two American soldiers in a small Arkansas town. Just a few years ago, that kind of journalistic irresponsibility would have been severely criticized. But not now. Today, news reporting is a different story.

As has been well documented, the American media are now in the ideology business, and Obama has been a big beneficiary of that. Not only did most journalists vote for him, as the president recently pointed out, but the media actively aided his candidacy by providing him with favorable coverage. And that continues to this day.

The news media may believe they are helping Obama by avoiding the constant violence of Muslim terrorism, but the practice is putting all of us in danger. How many more Bledsoes are roaming around?

Good question. Unfortunately, you won't get an answer on the nightly news.



Obama Bullies Palau

J.C. Arenas

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_bullies_palau.html

With nation after nation turning down the "opportunity" to house detainees from Guantanmo Bay, I thought Obama discovered Palau by ordering Robert Gibbs to spin a Replogle globe and stop it with his finger.

I was wrong.

Johnson Toribiong, the President of Palau, conducted an interview with the Associated Press, and declared that the deal to transfer 13 Uighurs to his small pacific island is "tentative" and about "50-50". However, further examination of the situation leads to the conclusion that Obama knew that he could force Toribiong between a rock and a hard place and if he intends to act in the best interest of his nation, he has to take on the Uighurs.

Here's why.

In 1995, Palau joined The Compact of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) which endows the nations with U.S. federal funding in exchange for certain defense rights including the use of defense sites.

While the FSM and RMI both renewed their respective compacts in 2004, Palau's Compact is set to expire as of September 30, 2009.

Contrary to initial reports, Toribiong has already denied that the U.S. has offered to pay Palau to take the Uighurs and that makes sense -- because Obama doesn't need to pay.

For the last 15 years, Palau has received U.S. aid via the Compact exceeding $850 million.

Reasonably, I'm sure Toribiong is reluctant to house terrorists on his island, and he's diplomatically tried to avoid making such a declaration, offering instead an irrational assertion that perhaps the Uighurs won't like the new climate or the ocean, despite the fact these are individuals that have spent the spent the last eight years in the Caribbean.

The question at hand here is does Toribiong want to extend that Compact or not?

Ultimately, there was no coincidence here, and once again as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out in the past, Obama doles out the sugar and the spinach. In this case, the sugar is the possible renewal of a financially beneficial compact for the Palauans, but the spinach is the housing of unwanted and potentially dangerous terrorists.

Palau doesn't have much of a choice.



Jews ‘Very Concerned’ About Obama, Leader of Jewish Organizations Says

By: Ronald Kessler

President Obama’s strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview.

Though Hoenlein says he is only offering his personal views, the conference he represents is a political powerhouse that includes 50 major Jewish groups. Among them are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B’nai B’rith International, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah, and the Anti-Defamation League. Hoenlein has been the professional head of the conference since 1986, overseeing its day-to-day activities as the coordinating body for American Jews on issues of concern in the U.S. and globally.

Jewish leaders "are expressing concern about what was said [in Obama’s Cairo speech]," Hoenlein says. "I’ve heard it from some of his strongest supporters. It’s expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them."

Obama’s speech to a Muslim audience in Cairo in early June was his second effort early in his administration to re-define America’s posture toward the Arab world. In April, Obama traveled to Ankara, Turkey, to offer a similar outreach to the Muslim world.

But many in the Jewish community, including some of Obama’s most ardent supporters, are troubled by his comments in the Middle East, especially his remarks to his Cairo audience. Others are concerned that, facing a multitude of problems on the domestic front, Obama has traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel, America’s stalwart ally in the region for more than a half-century.

"There’s a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for," Hoenlein says of Obama’s outreach.

Reaction to Obama’s speech has drawn a range of reaction from many Jewish leaders. On the right, some have condemned it as a revision of the long and close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But many on the left who backed Obama were also surprised and dismayed over Obama’s speech. Such reactions from major Jewish leaders have largely remained beneath the surface, exchanged privately among them.

Hoenlein’s comments to Newsmax are his first detailed appraisal of Obama’s speech and represent the first time a major Jewish leader has spoken openly about the erosion of Jewish support for Obama.

According to the exit poll conducted by major press organizations during the 2008 election, Obama captured overwhelming support from American Jews, winning 78 percent of their vote. Despite the fact that Republicans are stronger on national security and the war on terror, Obama also won support from Jewish leaders who have been champions of Israel’s security, such as the former Democratic mayor of New York, Edward I. Koch. Koch crossed party lines in 2004 to back George W. Bush.

Reacting to Obama’s Cairo speech, Hoenlein tells Newsmax, "I have no problem with addressing the Muslim world. I’m in fact in favor of outreach, and we here at the conference have done it for about 12 or 15 years, visiting Muslim countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. But the question is, what is the message they get? It’s not so much what he says, but how do they perceive what he says?"

On the one hand, Hoenlein says, "His reference to Israel and the special relationship being unbreakable is important, and references to persecution and Holocaust denial were important, and some of his references to some human rights issues also were important."

But Hoenlein notes the speech included a number of troubling references and comparisons. He cites the fact that Obama claimed America has seven million Muslims. That is a figure "Arab propagandists have put out," he says. "In fact, they say only six million, when in fact there’s no study that shows even half of that."

In 2007, the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population at 2.35 million.

Hoenlein is disturbed that Obama did not mention the Jewish people’s ancient connection with the land of Israel.

"There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says. "And that is again one of the propaganda lines that the Arabs have used: that the Jews are interlopers, that the two temples never existed, that there was never any Jewish history in the land of Israel. Even Yasser Arafat and others have used that argument because they’re trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don’t believe that was the president’s intent, but not making those references I think is troubling."

Jews have claimed a connection to the land of their forefathers since 1400 B.C. Even after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and the dispersal of many Jews throughout the Roman Empire, many Jews continued to reside in Jerusalem through the centuries, surviving various invasions. An Ottoman census of Jerusalem conducted in 1845 showed Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 and were the dominant ethnic group in the region.

Hoenlein believes that the most troubling aspect of Obama’s comments in his Cairo speech was his effort to equate the Nazi killing of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Israel’s struggle with the Palestinians over six decades and the suffering caused by the displacement of the Palestinians.

"There’s no comparison between the Holocaust, even if it was an indirect one, and what happened to Palestinians," Hoenlein declares.

In his speech, President Obama addressed the issue of the Holocaust head-on, saying "Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today."

But he quickly changed the subject, comparing Hitler’s genocide of the Jews to the Palestinian struggle.

"On the other hand," Obama said, as he transitioned from the Holocaust to the modern Middle East, "it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

Hoenlein doesn’t buy Obama’s line of reasoning.

"The Palestinian refugee problem, or dislocation as he said, didn’t come about because of the creation of the Jewish state," Hoenlein says. "It came about because the Arab states declared war on Israel and warned the Arabs that they would suffer the same fate as the Jews if they didn’t get out. And then they kept them as political pawns."

Obama made no reference to the fact that "the reason the Palestinians don’t have a state is because their leaders rejected every offer for peace," Hoenlein says. "Whether it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1967, or later on, up until Ehud Olmert’s offer and Ehud Barak’s offer, they rejected everything, even when they were getting virtually everything they had asked for."

That is because, "The problem really is not what Israel does, it’s that Israel is," Hoenlein says. "And they’re not ready to accept the existence of the Jewish state."

In discussing the Palestinian refugee problem, Obama failed to mention the other refugee problem involving nearly a million Jews, Hoenlein says. At the time of the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, Jews populated all of the major Arab cities from Baghdad in the East to Casablanca in the West.

Hoenlein notes that after modern Israel saw its rebirth, Jews "were driven out of Arab countries penniless, and some of their families had lived there for a thousand years, and yet there was no reference to them." He adds, "This is not a question of tit for tat. It’s a question of the realities that are communicated to a vast audience in the Arab Muslim world."

As troubling as Obama’s references to Israel and the Palestinians were, Hoenlein found the president’s failure to mention the radical regime now running Tehran equally disturbing.

"What concerned us, concerned many people, was the message to Iran that we didn’t hear," Hoenlein says.

Iran, controlled by powerful Shia Mullahs, is set to acquire a nuclear device. Many Sunni Muslim states, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Morocco, are concerned about this prospect.

Hoenlein says these Arab states also wanted to hear "an absolute assurance about the U.S. commitment not to allow Iran to be nuclear, not to allow it to continue to support terrorism, not to allow it to continue being the major state sponsor of terror around the world."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared himself the winner in the election in Iran this past weekend, has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. In 2005, he declared that he is a devout follower of Iran’s late ruler Ayatollah Khomeini. He has vowed to fulfill the Ayatollah’s dream that the "occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map."

Asked if he sees Obama’s perceived tilt toward the Palestinians as reflecting some of the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Obama’s former pastor who accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and "terrorism," Hoenlein says American Jews are concerned about Obama’s policies today.

"That issue has been discussed and debated, and I don’t know that it’s a relevant concern for right now," he says. "I do feel strongly about what the [current] policy will be."

Hoenlein says flatly, "People [Jews] are genuinely very concerned...about President Obama."



Arabic Christian group sues City of Dearborn after police restrict its First Amendment rights

http://www..jihadwatch.org/archives/026608.php

I received this email from my attorney, William Becker. It is a sad day when American law enforcement officials restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans in order to accommodate Muslims.

As you know, Dearborn, Michigan, features the most highly concentrated population of Muslims in the nation. My clients, Arabic Christian Perspective (ACP), and Pastor George Saieg attend the annual Arab International street festival there every year handing out Christian material to Muslims. They do this along the public sidewalks that run along the street, where the festival is conducted. It is open to the public and admission is free. Business establishments along the street remain open during the festival.
It is a bold thing to do, but in the five years ACP has been going there, it has never encountered any problems.

Now, the Dearborn Police Department has asked ACP to stand on a single corner, where they will be unable to freely mingle with festival gatherers and unable to reach their intended audience. This is a violation of its First Amendment rights.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, has agreed to assist me in this matter.

Today they filed a complaint, and sent a letter to the city attorney. I will keep you posted.



"The e-mail Bag"

You might be Taliban if...

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.



A Spouse's Graveside Service

The graveside service just barely finished, when there was massive clap of thunder, followed by a tremendous bolt of lightning, accompanied by even more thunder rumbling in the distance..

The little old man looked at the pastor and calmly said, 'Well, she's there.'



Please, Remove the Curse

An old man goes to the Wizard to ask him if he can remove a curse he has been living with for the last 40 years.

The Wizard says, 'Maybe, but you will have to tell me the exact words that were used to put the curse on you.'

The old man says without hesitation, 'I now pronounce you man and wife.'