ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090629

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

High-integrity workplaces don't get that way by accident, coincidence, or luck. They're molded, shaped, and built by leaders at all levels. -- Eric Harvey



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"Obey God because you are His children. Don't slip back into your old ways of doing evil; you didn't know any better then." (1 Peter 1:14)

If we are to behave with the character of Christ, we must trust and obey our loving heavenly Father.

A story is told of a loving father who was trying to save his daughter during a bombing raid in World War II. Fleeing a building that had just been hit and desperate for shelter, he spied a large hole from an earlier shell explosion. He leaped in, then lifted his arms to catch his child. The terrified girl cried out that she could not see him. He looked up and saw her silhouette illuminated by tracer lights and fire. The father called out to her, "I can see you. Jump!" When she heard the encouraging words of her father, she jumped into the safety of his arms.

Our wise and all-knowing God sees us everyday, and He knows how to protect us from dangers---both spiritual and physical. When we bend to His will and discipline, we are jumping into His invisible arms. We are demonstrating our love and are trusting in His wisdom rather than relying on our own understanding.

As we daily surrender our plans and desires to our loving Father, we reflect the character of Jesus. In obedience to His Father, Jesus sacrificed everything. He gave up His life and took upon Himself the horror and guilt of our sins. This choice to obey was not easy, as His battle in Gethsemane reveals. The Bible describes His sweat as "drops of blood" as He pleaded, "Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done" (Luke 22:42, NIV).



"The Patriot Post"

"Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country." -- Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788



This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers. It's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies, the government has actually turned a profit. This is not a sign that our troubles are over. Far from it. The financial crisis this administration inherited is still creating painful challenges for businesses and families alike, and I think everybody sees it in their own individual districts. But it is a positive time." -- Barack Obama, dictating to businesses, but still passing the buck to his predecessor whenever possible



EFCA = Cash Cow for Big Labor

A recent study commissioned by the Workforce Fairness Institute determined that passage of the grossly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, also known as "card check," would result in labor unions netting a political windfall in the billions of dollars over the next decade. Taking the claim by Service Employees International Union president Andy Stern that an additional 1.5 million union workers would sign up each year after passage of EFCA, the WFI study extrapolated the likely amount of dues payments each worker would be forced to cough up, combined with trends in political giving by Big Labor, to come up with its figure. The WFI estimates that forced contributions could reach $320 million annually by 2020. It almost goes without saying that the vast majority of union political contributions accrue to Democrat candidates and causes.

While union spokesmen were critical of the study, one may have unwittingly let slip a kernel of truth by noting, "How we spend money on politics is not a reflection of membership." Since many of those union members contributed to the column of "Reagan Democrats" and later became faithful Republicans, the huge disparity of political donations to liberal Democrats indeed belies the political makeup of the rank-and-file. That will likely continue to skew farther away from genuine representation if EFCA becomes law.



Second Amendment: Museum Shooting Fallout

"Two members of Washington D.C.'s city council used Wednesday's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to draw attention to a gun amendment that has stalled a bill that would grant D.C. a representational vote in Congress," reports The Hill. DC Councilman Michael Brown warned, "Loosening the District's gun laws is a deadly proposition." That reaction was predictable. We should point out to Councilman Brown, however, that this was not a law-abiding citizen who shot and killed a security guard at the museum. And DC's current gun laws (not to mention murder laws) were not sufficient to deter 88-year-old James von Brunn.

Meanwhile, Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center pontificated, "I think this latest round of killing once again shows how ridiculous the criticism from the right of the Department of Homeland Security report was. That whole brouhaha was absurd." In other words, "See, we told you so." Von Brunn was a Holocaust-denying white supremacist, which, to leftist nuts like Potok, means he's automatically "right wing." On the contrary, von Brunn is a socialist who hates Christians, Fox News, The Weekly Standard and other "neocons," and proclaimed in a blog post, "SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West." Besides, if anti-Semitism is a marker of being right wing, what does that make Jeremiah Wright?



Faith and Family: Tiller's Clinic Closed

In the wake of the murder of abortionist George Tiller, his family has announced the permanent closure of his Kansas clinic -- one of the few in the country that performed partial-birth abortions. Fellow partial-birth abortionist Warren Hern called the outcome "hideous," claiming, "The anti-abortion movement got exactly what they wanted. ... The question is, 'Who's next?'" Despite Hern's statement, however, not one pro-life organization has -- or will -- condone Tiller's murder.

Indeed, far from asking "Who's next?" one group is asking, "What's next?" for the clinic's property. Operation Rescue, one of the nation's most prominent pro-life organizations, has expressed interest in buying the property to complement its Wichita office location which, incidentally, is also a former abortion clinic. Such a conversion is not unprecedented. In Tennessee, for example, the National Memorial for the Unborn and AAA Women's Services, which provides education and alternatives to abortion, occupy a former clinic where more than 35,000 babies were killed.

While some believe the best answer to Tiller's murder is more murder -- the Philadelphia Women's Center, for example, gave away free abortions to "honor" Tiller, and Nebraska abortion provider LeRoy Carhart has promised his "help," pledging, "[T]here will be a place in Kansas for the later second- and the medically indicated third-trimester patients very soon" -- we support Operation Rescue's approach, and we hope the site where thousands of unborn babies met a horrific death will soon help women choose life.



"The Web"

Anchored In Him
http://www.anchoredinhim.com/olpath/paths.html



The Old Paths!THE OLD PATHS

I liked the old paths,
when Moms were at home. Dads were at work.
Brothers went into the army.
And sisters got married BEFORE having children!
Crime did not pay; Hard work did;
And people knew the difference.
Moms could cook; Dads would work;
Children would behave. Husbands were loving;
Wives were supportive; And children were polite.
Women wore the jewelry; And Men wore the pants.
Women looked like ladies; Men looked like gentlemen;
And children looked decent.
People loved the truth, And hated a lie;
They came to church to get IN, Not to get OUT!
Hymns sounded Godly;
Sermons sounded helpful; Rejoicing sounded normal;
And crying sounded sincere. Cursing was wicked;

Drugs were for illness; And divorce was unthinkable.
The flag was honored; America was beautiful;
And God was welcome! We read the Bible in public;
Prayed in school; And preached from house to house

To be called an American was worth dying for;
To be called a Christian was worth living for;
To be called a traitor was a shame!
Preachers preached because they had a message;
And Christians rejoiced because they had the VICTORY!
Preachers preached from the Bible;
Singers sang from the heart;
And sinners turned to the Lord to be SAVED!
A new birth meant a new life; Salvation meant a changed life;
Following Christ led to eternal life.
Being a preacher meant you proclaimed the word of God;
Being a deacon meant you would serve the Lord;
Being a Christian meant you would live for Jesus;
And being a sinner meant someone was praying for you!
Laws were based on the Bible; Homes read the Bible;
And churches taught the Bible. God was worshiped;
Christ was exalted; And the Holy Spirit was respected..
Church was where you found Christians on the Lord's day,
rather than in the garden, on the creek bank,
on the golf course, Or being entertained somewhere else.
I still like the old paths the best!

"The Old Paths"
was written by a retired minister who lives in Tennessee



Using God as father's guide

by Rebecca Hagelin

The facts are brutally painful -- More than 25 million children in America live in homes where fathers are absent. Millions more have experienced emotional wounds so deep at the hands of their dads it seems as if they can never break free from the bondage of suffering and bitterness.

It is impossible to understand, then, why fathers who lovingly live out their sacred calling to truly care for their children are maligned in our modern culture. Attacking and belittling an institution that children so desperately need is both foolish and evil.

It's time for a radical, transformational attitude change toward fathering in America. We must restore both the institution of fatherhood and help heal the hearts of the wounded. We need to break the chains of neglect and prevent the harms from being repeated for generations to come. The family is the basic building block of every civil society and dads are a foundational component.

If we continue down the current path of devaluing dads, father absenteeism, and discouraging men from making a full commitment to their families, American civil society is doomed.

Our culture has come like a thief in the night and robbed families of the joy that comes with Godly fathering. How do we recover and restore what has been taken? Absorb the truths in the world's best book on fathering: the Bible.

The Good Book has something for everyone when it comes to the subject of fatherhood. For the abandoned and orphaned, God is described in Psalm 65 as a "father for the fatherless." Scores of other verses depict the God of the universe as a staunch defender of those who have no earthly dads. For those who have been deeply hurt by their fathers, God's unconditional love is a healing balm.

The entire Bible is the story of God's relentless pursuit of and devotion to the human race. He is the dependable father who will never leave, who pours out His mercy and compassion on broken hearts, whose strong arms bind up wounds, and whose abundant grace eases pain.

For fathers themselves, God is the gentle counselor, the perfect role model. He encourages dads in their sacred calling, and offers divine wisdom to common men who dare to fall to their knees and seek His guidance.

The Psalmist paints a beautiful picture in Chapter 103 of the characteristics of God that every father should emulate. Verse 8, for instance, reminds us that, "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy." My own father frequently read the passage to me as a child. I always thought that it was partly to teach me about the characteristics of our heavenly Father, and partly to remind him of the type of dad and man he should be.

In Ephesians 6:4 we read, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." In other words, God's word is the definitive fathering manual. The answers and prescriptions are all there. It has guided both dads and children of all ages through the centuries and its advice and counsel are as true in these modern days as they have ever been.

May you experience the power, peace and truth of the ancient words. May you, dear dads everywhere, use the Bible as your guidebook and thus unlock the key to becoming the father your children deserve. And may those whose hearts have been broken learn the intimacy, joy and fulfillment of truly knowing your heavenly Father. Make yourself vulnerable to Him - He will delight your heart and flood the dry places in your soul with His fatherly love.

Rebecca Hagelin is senior communications fellow for the Heritage Foundation and the author of "30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family" and runs the Web site HowToSaveYourFamily.com.



The Church Painter

There was a Scottish painter named Smokey MacGregor who was very interested in making a penny where he could, so he often thinned down his paint to make it go a wee bit further. As it happened, he got away with this for some time, but eventually the Baptist Church decided to do a big restoration job on the outside of one of their biggest buildings. Smokey put in a bid, and, because his price was so low, he got the job.

So he set about erecting the scaffolding and setting up the planks, and buying the paint and, yes, I am sorry to say, thinning it down with turpentine.

Well, Smokey was up on the scaffolding, painting away, the job nearly completed, when suddenly there was a horrendous clap of thunder, the sky opened, and the rain poured down washing the thinned paint from all over the church and knocking Smokey clear off the scaffold to land on the lawn among the gravestones, surrounded by telltale puddles of the thinned and useless paint. Smokey was no fool. He knew this was a judgment from the Almighty, so he got down on his knees and cried: "Oh, God, forgive me; what should I do?" And from the thunder, a mighty voice spoke..

<<< Highlight between the brackets below with your mouse to find the answer >>>

[[[ "Repaint! Repaint! And thin no more!" ]]]

by jesushomeboy



Sonia Sotomayor: Measured by the Word of God and Found Wanting

by Herbert W. Titus, J.D.

On May 11, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated court of appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In support of this nomination, the President assured the American people that Judge Sotomayor was a deserving and worthy nominee. Not only would she be an able justice, the President intoned, she would be impartial, and she would have “empathy.” Thus, the President proclaimed that, with the nomination of Judge Sotoamayor, he had fulfilled one of his campaign promises, the one that he made to Planned Parenthood in 2007, that his judicial appointees would have “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a teen age mom; the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”

Within days after this announcement, the President’s glowing endorsement became tarnished by the nominee’s own words. Delivering the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Judge Sotomayor asserted her “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.” This statement not only generated a crescendo of voices accusing Judge Sotomayor of “racism,” but a deep and abiding concern that Judge Sotomayor did not have the judicial temperament that would enable her to judge impartially.

Indeed, in the week before the President’s public announcement of his choice to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic raised questions about Judge Sotomayor’s “judicial temperament,” citing the testimony of various lawyers who found her to be—“a terror on the bench,” “overly aggressive—not very judicial,” “behaves in an out of control manner ... makes inappropriate outbursts,” “nasty to lawyers,” and “a bully on the bench.”

In Deuteronomy chapter 1, we learn that God instructed Moses to “take you wise men, and understanding” and appoint them “judges,” charging them to “judge righteously” without “respect of persons in judgment ... hear[ing] the small as well as the great, .... not ... afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:13, 16–17). Earlier in Leviticus, we learn that God expected judges to “do no unrighteousness in judgment,” neither “respect[ing] the poor, nor honor[ing] the person of the mighty.” (Lev. 19:15).

Tracking this law of Moses, a person appointed to exercise the judicial power vested by Article III of the United States Constitution, is required to take not just one, but two oaths.

First, he must swear or affirm that “I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Second he must swear or affirm that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

In the short time that the American people have had to appraise whether Judge Sotomayor would be true to these oaths, it is becoming increasingly apparent that even her supporters—from the President on down—have backpedaled. In an attempt to soften her statement that a “Latina woman” judge would be superior to a “white male” jurist, President Obama said that “I am sure that she would have restated it.” Others have chimed in, including the President’s press secretary who dismissed the matter as just a mistake in the choice of words.

But, if one takes a closer look, Judge Sotomayor’s self-identification as a “Latina judge” reveals a person who is definitely not qualified to be elevated to the nation’s highest court. Indeed, a closer look reveals that she should be removed from the court of appeals on which she currently sits.

Sotomayor v. Solomon

According to Deuteronomy, the first and foremost qualification for the office of a judge, is that the person be “wise and understanding.” (Deut. 1:13). In her 2001 speech at the Berkeley law school, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “there can never be a universal definition of wise.” Hence, Judge Sotomayor expressed her conviction that judges have no choice but to draw upon their life’s experiences to resolve disputes between parties in cases and appeals brought to them. Further, she asserted the “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.”

According to the book of Proverbs, however, there is a universal wisdom, established before the foundation of the world “to lead the way of righteousness, in the midst of the path of judgment.” (Prov. 8:20). And this wisdom is universally available to all (Prov. 1:20–23), the only precondition of which is to fear God and to diligently seek it. (Prov. 2:1–10). And, if one heeds this command, he “will increase learning ... and ... shall attain wise counsels.” (Prov. 1:5). On the other hand, those who “despise wisdom and instruction,” will become “fools.” (Prov. 1:7). Thus, the Bible summarizes the several chapters in Proverbs contrasting the wise and the foolish with this conclusion: “The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honor is humility.” (Prov. 15:33).

These Biblical truths can best be illustrated by one of the most popular and acclaimed events in the history of Israel. In recognition of his youth and inexperience, King Solomon humbled himself before God, praying for an “understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad; for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?” 1 Kings 3:9. In response to Solomon’s cry, “God gave [him] wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart ... wiser than all men.” (1 Kings 4:29, 31). Then, Solomon displayed that wisdom when he adjudicated the dispute between the two harlots, ordering the dividing of the baby, knowing full well that the mother’s heart even of a harlot would reveal whose child it was. (see 1 Kings 3:16–28).

In Sotomayor’s world, however, Solomon’s “wise judgment” could only be explained as sheer luck. After all, King Solomon was not only not a woman—much less a harlot—but had grown up in luxury, a favored son of King David—born with a “silver spoon” in his mouth. How, then, could Solomon have known that a mother’s love would triumph over a harlot’s spirit? His life’s experience was surely that of a “white male” and, according to Judge Sotomayor, totally unable to administer justice in a dispute between two fallen women—unless perchance the harlots had been represented by women lawyers sympathetic to civilization’s “oldest profession.” After all, as Judge Sotomayor would have us believe, the ruling by nine white men on the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racially segregated schools violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws was made possible only because the children’s advocates were persons of color.

Judge Sotomayor proposes that for more consistent and reliable rulings in favor of minority groups the bench should be populated by “statistically significant numbers” of women, and people of color. Presumably, Judge Sotomayor believes that a judiciary more representative of such demographics will by a combination of their “rich life experiences” more often than not reach better conclusions than a bench over represented by “white males.” While this may have an appearance of wisdom, “the end thereof [would be] the death” of equal protection of the laws. (See Proverbs 14:12). For true wisdom does not come from a multitude of diverse voices, but only from God above. (James 3:13–18).

Sotomayor v. Moses

Judge Sotomayor agrees with her fellow Yale Law School classmate, Professor Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School, that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.” Judge Sotomayor goes on to elaborate:

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances ... but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.

And Judge Sotomayor finds this color and sex-conscious approach to law and judging should be welcomed, not tempered, much less subordinated, to the rule of law:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.... I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from our experience and heritage but attempt .... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

In chapter 18 of the book of Exodus, we are given quite the opposite description of the judicial role, as explained by Moses to his father-in-law, Jethro:

What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone and all the people stand by thee from morning into even? And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God; When they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God and his laws. [Exodus 18:14–16.]

First, note that the people on both sides of the dispute voluntarily brought their case to Moses. No one was coerced. And Moses was not assigned at random to the case. Both sides knew that they would get Moses as their judge. Why did they come? Because Moses shared their life’s experiences? To the contrary, Moses had been raised in Pharoah’s house. He had not suffered enslavement, as they had, but had lived his first forty years in luxury. (See Exodus 2:1–10). Furthermore, while the Israelis were making bricks out of straw, Moses lived on the backside of the desert herding sheep. (See Exodus 3:1). And Moses had even married a foreign woman. (See Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1).

Surely, there were others more qualified than Moses to “feel their pain.” But the people, who had previously rejected Moses as their judge (see Exodus 1:14) now embraced him. Why? They knew that Moses would judge impartially, that he would “not respect persons in judgment, but [would] hear the small as well as the great.” (See Deuteronomy 1:17). Unlike Judge Sotomayor, Moses did not “aspire” to be impartial; he was impartial, because God commanded it. (See Leviticus 19:15). Unlike Judge Sotomayor, Moses had no choice to behave otherwise. (See Deuteronomy 16:18–20). Neither sympathy, nor opinion, nor prejudice could ever be a touchstone upon which Moses would decide a case.

Second, note that Moses based his decisions on “the statutes of God, and his laws,” not as Judge Sotomayor who would base her decisions on her “perspective” of the law. No. The people did not come to Moses to get his “perspective” on the matter in dispute. They came to get an authoritative resolution, one that would put the contending parties at rest, not leave them wondering that, if they had chosen someone else, they might have gotten a better deal. Judge Sotomayor, however, can offer nothing more than her “perspective,” because she does not believe in the pre-existence of a set of rules by which judges are obliged to make their decisions. Rather, she believes that judges make up their own rules either on the basis of their “experiences,” or on the basis of “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”

In contrast, Moses knew that God, mankind’s creator, had imposed upon His creation a set of rules which bound equally all mankind, male and female, and of every nationality. And it was the judge’s job simply to “make the parties know the statutes of God, and his laws.” Moses put this “common law” system in place even before God had revealed in writing the foundational principles of those laws. After all, not only had Moses been engaged in dispute resolution, but he had appointed others to do likewise, even before God handed down the Ten Commandments. (See Exodus 18:15–16, 19–26). None of is remotely possible in Judge Sotomayor’s world, divided as it is by the “inherent” differences between men and women, and “whites” and “people of color.” According to Sotomayor, there can be no “neutral” principles of law, because there is no legal ground common to both sexes and to all nations. The Bible record is to the contrary. (See Psalm 19; Romans 1:18–20; Galatians 3:28).

Sotomayor v. Deborah

In the book of Judges, we are introduced to Deborah, “a prophetess [who] judged Israel” during one of the numerous times of oppression suffered during the period between Joshua and Samuel. (See Judges 4:4). As had been the case with Israel’s judges from Moses to Ehud, Deborah’s immediate predecessor—and as would be the case with those judges from Deborah’s successor, Gideon to Samuel and beyond—“the children of Israel came up to [Deborah] for judgment.” (Judges 4:5). Clearly, the people did not change their practice of seeking resolution of their disputes just because of Deborah’s sex or her tribal identity. Nor did they expect to be judged by any “sex-based” or “tribal-oriented” standard. Rather, the rule of law that prevailed during Deborah’s judgeship was the same rule that had been applied by Moses and would be applied by all of the judges thereafter. Thus, when Barak was summoned to appear before Deborah, the rule that only males would go to war (Deut. 20:1–9) was not changed, even though Deborah relented to Barak’s plea and accompanied him to battle. (Judges 4:6–9).

According to Judge Sotomayor, however, the rules do change, and such change is based upon the sexual orientation and ethnic background of the judge: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Would Judge Sotomayor change the law to accommodate a plea from her “Barak,” President Barack Obama, to accommodate his weakness? Why not? After all, Judge Sotomayor believes that a judge’s life “experiences” is what really counts in the judicial process—that, in reality, law is a reflection of the personal characteristics of those applying it.

If so, then why should we believe Judge Sotomayor when she tells us that her “gender” and her “Latina heritage” are the two most prominent determinants that shape her judicial opinions. She is not just a woman, but she is a divorcee and childless. And she is not just a self-described “Latina,” but she is a “Newyorkrican,” that is a “born and bred New Yorker of Puerto-Rican born parents who came to the states during World War II.” And she is a diabetic, and has been since childhood, and was raised by a single mother and whose father died when she was young. If law is nothing more than a judge’s life’s experiences, then shouldn’t Judge Sotomayor open the entire book of her life, including her failed marriage, to Senate scrutiny? How else would a Senator know how to vote on her confirmation?

As for Deborah, we are told only that she was the “wife of Lapidoth” and that she “dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim.” (See Judges 4:4–5.) Why so short a biography? Because in raising up persons to judge Israel (Judges 2:16), God no doubt adhered to the Mosaic standard revealed in Exodus 18:21: “thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” That standard did not change just because Deborah was a married woman to a man who was of the tribe of Ephraim.

Sotomayor v. The Bible

How would Judge Sotomayor measure up to the four Exodus standards? In order to be “able” to judge:

The Bible teaches:
● A judge must be “wise and understanding.” (Deut. 1:13).

Sotomayor believes:
● “There can never be a universal definition of wise ... 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.”

The Bible teaches:
● One must “judge righteously,” not by “appearances,” but by “just judgment.” (Deut.1:16 and 16:18).

Sotomayor believes:
● “‘[T]o judge is an exercise of power’ and because there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging. I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.”

The Bible teaches:
● One must “fear God,” not be “afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:17).

Sotomayor believes:
● “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

The Bible teaches:
● One must be a “man of truth,” not a “respect[er] of persons” doing no “unrighteousness in judgment.” Leviticus 19:15.

Sotomayor believes:
● “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”

The Bible teaches:
● One must “hate covetousness,” for the “tak[ing] [of] a gift ... doth blind the eyes of the wise; and pervert the words of the righteous.” Deuteronomy 16:19.

Sotomayor believes:
● “We ... must continue ... to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have a statistically significant numbers to measure the difference we will and are making.”

Clearly, Judge Sotomayor’s view of herself as a judge, when measured by the Word of God, is found wanting.



Gun Wisdom from Thunder Ranch

Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, is part drill instructor, and part stand up comic. Here are a few of his observations on tactics, firearms, self defense and life as we know it in the civilized world.

"The handgun would not be my choice of weapon if I knew I was going to a fight. I'd choose a rifle, a shotgun, an RPG or an atomic bomb instead."

"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: always cheat and always win."

"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, 'cause it's going to be empty."

"If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not loadin', you should be movin'; if you're not movin', someone's gonna cut your head off and put it on a stick."

"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your flashlight in your back pocket. If you light yourself up, you'll look like the tooth fairy or an angel ... and you're gonna be one of 'em pretty soon."

"Do something. It may be wrong, but do something."

"Shoot what's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for?"

"Don't shoot fast, shoot good."

"You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."

"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."

"You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family."



Do You Remember?

1. After the Lone Ranger saved the day and rode off into the sunset, the grateful citizens would ask, "Who was that masked man?" Invariably, someone would answer, "I don't know, but he left this behind." What did he leave behind? _______________

2. When the Beatles first came to the U.S. in early 1964, we all watched them on the _______________ Show.

3. Get your kicks, _______________.

4. The story you are about to see is true. The names have been changed _______________.


5. In the jungle, the mighty jungle, _______________.

6. After the twist, the mashed potatoes, and the watusi, we "danced" under a stick that was lowered as low as we could go in a dance called the _______________.

7. Nestle makes the very best _______________.

8. Sachmo was America's "ambassador of goodwill". Our parents shared this great jazz trumpet player with us. His name was _______________.

9. What takes a licking and keeps on ticking? _______________

10. Red Skeleton's hobo character was _______________ and he always ended his television show by saying, "Good night and _______________.

11. Some Americans who protested the Vietnam war did so by burning their _______________.

12. The cute little car with the engine in the back and the trunk in the front was called the V.W. What other names did it go by? _______________ and _______________

13. In 1971, singer Don MacLean sang a song about, "the day the music died." This was a tribute to _______________.

14. We can remember the first satellite placed into orbit. The Russians did it. It was called _______________.

15. One of the big fads of the late fifties and sixties was a large plastic ring that we twirled around our waist. It was called the _______________.


ANSWERS:

1. After the Lone Ranger saved the day and rode off into the sunset, the grateful citizens would ask, "Who was that masked man?" Invariably, someone would answer, "I don't know, but he left this behind." What did he leave behind? A silver bullet

2. When the Beatles first came to the U.S. in early 1964, we all watched them on the Ed Sullivan Show.

3. Get your kicks, on Route 66.

4. The story you are about to see is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

5. In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the Lion sleeps tonight.

6. After the twist, the mashed potatoes, and the watusi, we "danced" under a stick that was lowered as low as we could go in a dance called the limbo.

7. Nestle makes the very best chocolate.

8. Sachmo was America's "ambassador of goodwill". Our parents shared this great jazz trumpet player with us. His name was Louis Armstrong.

9. What takes a licking and keeps on ticking? Timex

10. Red Skeleton's hobo character was Freddy the freeloader and he always ended his television show by saying, "Good night and may God bless.

11. Some Americans who protested the Vietnam war did so by burning their draft cards.

12. The cute little car with the engine in the back and the trunk in the front was called the V.W. What other names did it go by? Beetle and Bug

13. In 1971, singer Don MacLean sang a song about, “the day the music died." This was a tribute to Buddy Holly.

14. We can remember the first satellite placed into orbit. The Russians did it. It was called Sputnik.

15. One of the big fads of the late fifties and sixties was a large plastic ring that we twirled around our waist. It was called the Hula Hoop.



"The e-mail Bag"

Are you smarter than a 3rd grader?

A first-grade teacher, Ms. Brooks, was having trouble with one of her students. The teacher asked, 'Harry, what's your problem?'

Harry answered, 'I'm too smart for the 1st grade. My sister is in the 3rd grade and I'm smarter than she is! I think I should be in the 3rd grade, too!'

Ms. Brooks had had enough. She took Harry to the principal's office.

While Harry waited in the outer office, the teacher explained to the principal what the situation was. The principal told Ms. Brooks he would give the boy a test. If he failed to answer any of his questions he was to go back to the 1st grade and behave. She agreed.

Harry was brought in and the conditions were explained to him and he agreed to take the test.

Principal: 'What is 3 x 3?'
Harry: '9.'

Principal: 'What is 6 x 6?'
Harry: '36.'

And so it went with every question the principal thought a 3rd grader should know.

The principal looks at Ms. Brooks and tells her, 'I think Harry can go to the 3rd grade.'

Ms. Brooks says to the principal, 'Let me ask him some questions.'

The principal and Harry both agreed.

Ms .. Brooks asks, 'What does a cow have four of that I have only two of?'
Harry, after a moment: 'Legs.'

Ms Brooks: 'What is in your pants that you have but I do not have?'
The principal wondered why would she ask such a question!
Harry replied: 'Pockets.'

Ms. Brooks: 'What does a dog do that a man steps into?'
Harry: 'Pants.'

Ms. Brooks: What starts with a C, ends with a T, is hairy, oval, delicious and contains thin, whitish liquid?'
Harry: 'Coconut.'

The principal sat forward with his mouth hanging open.

Ms. Brooks: 'What goes in hard and pink then comes out soft and sticky?'
The principal's eyes opened really wide and before he could stop the answer,
Harry replied, 'Bubble gum.'

Ms. Brooks: 'What does a man do standing up, a woman does sitting down and a dog does on three legs?'
Harry: 'Shake hands.'

The principal was trembling.

Ms. Brooks: 'What word starts with an 'F' and ends in 'K' that means a lot of heat and excitement?'
Harry: 'Firetruck.'

The principal breathed a sigh of relief and told the teacher, 'Put Harry in the fifth-grade, I got the last seven questions wrong.....'