ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090714

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

If you don't care, your customer never will. -- Marlene Blaszczyk



Applying “The Pareto Principle” to Your Goals

Vilfredo Pareto was a 19th-century Italian social scientist and critic. He observed that 80% of the wealth in Italy, at the time, was concentrated in 20% of the population – something he felt that was not good for society. While the genesis of his work is very seldom discussed, his name lives on in what is known as The Pareto Principle, or “the 80/20 rule” – a concept that is a relevant today as it was when it was first developed.

Talk to contemporary entrepreneurs and most will tell you that 80% of their business comes from 20% of their customers. Human resources executives will typically suggest that 80% of the employee relations problems and issues they have to deal with come from just 20% of the employees. And most business managers would agree that it’s a minority of their team members who are responsible for a majority of the innovation, creativity, and superior work their organizations enjoy. In all of these examples, the Pareto Principle suggests that we should pay attention to, and focus our efforts on, the critical few (the 20%) rather than the trivial or average many (the 80%).

So what does all this have to do with you and your goals? A lot! There’s a myriad of things you can do in pursuit of your professional and personal objectives. A large number of them fall into the 80% – the “trivial many.” A much smaller number fall in the “critical few” category – the important 20%.

Take a look at your goals and the action plans you’ve developed for meeting them. What are you doing? How are you investing your precious time? What do your past experiences – and the experiences of others – tell you? Are you focusing on “need to do,” high payback activities – or on less important, “like to do” tasks? Remember it’s that “critical few” that will propel you furthest and give you the most bang for your time an energy buck. When in doubt, think W-W-P-D (What Would Pareto Do?).



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"Wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, He gives freedom". (2 Corinthians 3:17)

I am thankful God does not change what He says based on opinion polls or focus groups. His words and commands are timeless. They apply to every culture, race, and nationality.

That is why the Bible has remained relevant throughout the ages. What God says is always pertinent. It never becomes obsolete. His timeless truth is the surest foundation.

Almost to a man, the founding fathers of the United States sought to serve and glorify Jesus Christ with their lives. One study reviewed 15,000 writings by the founding fathers. It found that 94 percent of all quotes either directly or indirectly cited the Bible. Fifty-two of the 55 framers of the Constitution were self-avowed Christians. They even dedicated this new republic to His honor and glory.

The efforts of our founding fathers produced miraculous results. The United States Constitution is currently the oldest operating document of any government in the world. The liberties it guarantees are greater than the liberties granted to the citizens of any other nation. And all this sprang from God's unchanging principles based on His unchanging character communicated through His unchanging Word.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, and the man who guided America through a civil war, stated, "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book."




"The Patriot Post"

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." -- John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1757

"To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted." -- Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, December, 1791

"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" -- George Washington, letter to James Warren, March 31, 1779



"Rick Santorum"

Muddled on Democracy: The Case of Honduras

The military-enforced removal of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 has generated a widespread wringing of hands across the globe, as leaders of both nations and international watchdog organizations once again find themselves debating the means and methods of democratic rule. Does the buck really stop at free and so-called "fair" elections? Or is a certain accountability beyond that initial vote needed for liberal democracies to flourish and protect its citizens?

It appears that the spread of Chavismo has confused the debate, infecting even the international media and U.S. policymakers, too many of whom for too long condemned the removal of the corrupt and reckless Zelaya as a "coup d'état." What we really have going on here is national treason at the highest level, with the very Constitution of Honduras having been flagrantly disregarded by the man elected to defend it. Where was all of the uproar about "democracy" 48 hours before Zelaya was removed from office, when he sidestepped judicial rulings and constitutional law? Last time I checked, being elected "democratically" was no license to overthrow the law.

Hasty declarations from the U.S. have been damaging, and it has taken too long for the Honduran patriots to get their side of the story out. Hillary Clinton made some mild rhetorical improvements in her press conference on Tuesday, but time will tell what these U.S.-endorsed negotiations with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias produce. In the meantime, I want to present you with the bare facts of the situation as it has progressed since last fall. May they speak for themselves, and may they speak for the Honduran people.

November 11, 2008

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya announces that he is seeking a fourth ballot box to be installed at polling places nationwide for November 29, 2009, one which offers to hold a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution and allow him to run for reelection.

March 24, 2009

Zelaya issues executive decree PCM-05-2009 (without publishing the full text) for the National Statistical Institute to hold the national referendum by June 28, 2009. In Honduras, with a congressional majority the president can amend the constitution without any referendum. However, eight articles, including term limits and process of presidential succession cannot be amended. Because the president can amend 368 of 375 articles without any constituent assembly, it can be assumed that Zelaya’s underlying motive is to extend his rule.

Late Spring 2009

The Honduran Armed Forces initially pledge support to the President and commander in chief, providing logistical support for the referendum. Zelaya begins to press for a non-binding survey (commonly referred to as a referendum by the international media), which purports to assess the population’s desire for a National Constituent Assembly.

Tuesday, June 23

The Supreme Court of Honduras, Congress, the country's attorney general, and the supreme electoral tribunal oppose the poll. The Honduran army informs the president they will not support the referendum.

Thursday, June 25

The president fires the head of the armed forces, and ignores a Supreme Court ruling ordering him to reinstate five-star General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez. Congress (including Zelaya’s own party) begins discussing grounds for impeachment. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez complains that ''there is a coup d'etat under way in Honduras,'' led by the “retrograde bourgeoisie.''

Friday, June 26

President Zelaya, along with a thousand of his paid activists, drives to the Honduras Air Force base in Tegucigalpa, where the survey’s material is being stored (having originally been flown in from Venezuela). Disobeying a court order, Zelaya robs the material and takes it to another location, facing little resistance with the intimidation of his surrounding mob. The Supreme Court orders the military to arrest Zelaya, and authorizes them to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest.

Saturday, June 27

Thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule march through the capital city. The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the military recommend that voters stay home for the sake of safety and fairness.

Sunday, June 28

At 5:30 a.m., President Zelaya is seized by soldiers acting on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, and taken to an air force base, before he is exiled to Costa Rica. The Honduran Congress officially votes out Zelaya and replaces him with Roberto Micheletti, the former president of Congress. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez threatens to invade Honduras.

Monday, June 29

Chávez, along with the leaders of Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, gather in Managua to discuss the situation. Chavez alludes to his belief that America was involved in the so-called “coup d'état.” Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua announce their plan to suspend overland trade with Honduras for 48 hours. Even U.S.. President Barack Obama says that "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras.” The new Honduran government expresses its resolve to remain in power.

Tuesday, June 30

The UN General Assembly votes unanimously to denounce the coup. The Organization of American States (OAS) holds an emergency session. Thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule continue to march through Tegucigalpa.

Wednesday, July 1

Zelaya addresses the United Nations, while the OAS Secretary-General threatens to suspend Honduras’s membership unless the new government reinstates Zelaya within three days. Honduras’s interim president Roberto Micheletti says his government is open to “dialogue” with Manuel Zelaya, but denies the possibility of backing down.

Thursday, July 2

Zelaya meets with leaders from Panama and Venezuela to discuss the coup. Thousands of the new government’s supporters march in Sand Pedro Sula, while thousands of Zelaya’s supporters gather in Tegucigalpa. The European Union announces its decision to remove all EU ambassadors from Honduras, and the U.S. suspends part of its aid program to Honduras.

Friday, July 3

The OAS president visits Honduras in order to attempt to restore Zelaya to power, but the new Honduran government rejects threats to reinstate Zelaya.

Saturday, July 4

The OAS votes unanimously to suspend Honduras’ membership.

Sunday, July 5
The Honduran police block Zelaya, along with the UN president, from flying into Tegucigalpa. At least one person is killed as police disperse the crowds of Zelaya’s supporters. Micheletti expresses a desire to negotiate with the OAS.

Monday, July 6

Thousands of Zelaya supporters march to the presidential palace to protest the new government. A group of Honduran businesspeople fly to Washington to advocate for the new government and maintain their trading ability.

Tuesday, July 7

Secretary Clinton meets with Zelaya in Washington, D.C., and announces Zelaya’s and Micheletti’s acceptance of a U.S.-endorsed mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, to try to resolve their conflict.

Wednesday, July 8

Zelaya clarifies and says that he has no intention of negotiating with the interim government: “It’s simply listening through a mediator…to see how they are planning their departure.”

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Program to Protect America's Freedom
1015 15th Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005



"Simple Truths"

The Simple Truths of Service

http://www.stservicemovie.com/



"Thoughts"

By: Floyd Wood

Life isn't waiting for the storm to pass; it's learning to dance in the rain---

The best way to save face is to keep the bottom half of it closed---

The best way to kill time is to work it to death.

One loyal friend is worth a dozen relatives.

A psychologist is selling a video for $12.95 that teaches you about your dog's IQ. If you buy the video ; it proves your dog is smarter than you are..



"Liberty Counsel"

Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org

July 13, 2009

Is Sotomayor an Activist Policymaker or a Neutral Umpire? Follow our LIVE BLOG at 10 a.m.

The confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor begin today at 10 a.m. before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Liberty Counsel will blog the entire hearing at www.LC.org.

President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retired Justice David Souter. The Democratic-led Senate has rushed these hearings before there has been adequate time to evaluate Sotomayor’s past rulings and statements.

She was actively involved on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1980-1992, while the group supported the abortion rights group, NOW, and other extreme groups, such as ACORN.

Since that time, Sotomayor openly admits that she judges using personal prejudice rather than impartial neutrality.

Read our News Release for more details about Sotomayor's record, then follow our LIVE BLOG starting at 10 a.m.

Forward this email to your list of family and friends, and encourage them to join the blog and to subscribe to our Liberty Alert email update.

Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.

Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854



"The Web"

Clear Conscience Health Care

http://www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org/



Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital

There is so much evidence to substantiate that President Obama may have been born in Kenya, rather than being a "natural born citizen", as required by the US Constitution. President Obama professes to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The fact is that in 1961, it is my belief that every state in America issued a true "Birth Certificate", specifically if born in a certified hospital. If President Obama was born in any hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, why can an authentic "Birth Certificate" not be found? Why do leaders in the Democrat Party fail to require certification? Is partisan politics more important than our US Constitution? - oyh

Uploaded by: admin

Myth-busting Web site, news articles say president not born in location he claims
By Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://usjf.net/archives/1270#more-1270

More than eight months after Barack Obama was elected president, the mystery surrounding his precise birthplace is deepening as the myth-busting Web site Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and an Obama community blog – directly contradict the president’s own claim regarding the hospital in which he was born.

In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.

Barack Obama states in this letter on White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center on its website.

But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

In Snopes’ entry concerning allegations that Obama is a “radical Muslim,” the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, “Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

In this July 7, 2009, screenshot of Snopes.com highlighted by WND, the myth-busting website asserts President Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, not the Kapi’olani Medical Center in which Obama claims to have been born.

Within just 90 minutes of the WND report, Snopes swapped the location of the president’s birth from Queen’s to Kapi’olani.

Screenshot of same Snopes.com address on July 8. 2009, reveals Snopes swapped the location of President Obama’s birth from Queen’s Medical Center to the Kapi’olani Medical Center.

It noted some ambiguity by stating, “News accounts have also variously placed his birth as having occurred at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”)

Interestingly, in Snopes’ entry focusing on the natural-born citizenship controversy, no mention is made of the birth hospital.

But Snopes is not alone in asserting Obama was born at a hospital other than the one he personally claims.

A number of news articles published both in the U.S. and abroad name Queen’s Medical Center – not Kapi’olani – as the correct birthplace.

A United Press International report from Nov. 4 states:

“Obama described his birth at Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an ‘all-America’ story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience.”

A July 7, 2009, screenshot of a United Press International story dated Nov. 4, 2008, indicates Barack Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

After this WND story was originally posted, UPI also swapped the hospital of birth to indicate Obama was born at Kapi’olani, as shown here at the same online address:

Screenshot of same UPI.com address on July 8. 2009, reveals UPI swapped the location of President Obama’s birth from Queen’s Medical Center to the Kapi’olani Medical Center.

A November 2004 report from the Rainbow Edition News Letter, published by the Education Laboratory School in Hawaii, noted in its lead sentence:

“Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

This screenshot of the November 2004 edition of the Rainbow Edition News Letter states at its outset Obama was born at Queen’s Medical Center.

Adding a twist to the dispute is a separate claim on the MyBarackObama.com campaign website that lists a genealogy for Obama citing his birthplace as Queen’s Medical Center.

The site documents Obama’s lineage back to his great-great-great grandparents, who lived in the mid-1800s.

It states: “Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas.”

William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress, first listed the birth location at Queen’s.

Kenya’s East African Standard, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled “From Young ‘Barry’ to Top American Senator,” said of Obama: “The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Centre of the University of Hawaii in Manoa.”

But news agencies are hardly unanimous on the exact hospital.

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu Advertiser and Washington Post have all published stories indicating Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center, in agreement with the president’s letter to the facility.

But even the Honolulu Advertiser, in a Nov. 9 article, admitted “the hospital where he was born is difficult to document,” as officials clam up while citing federal privacy laws.

“We can’t confirm or deny it – even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital,” said hospital spokeswoman Claire Tong. “Our hands are tied.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions only that Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, but makes no reference to any hospital.

The Associated Press reports that Internet users are far from ignorant about the questions over Obama’s birthplace and documentation.

“Among the top search terms paired with Barack Obama: biography, Israel, news, jokes, stimulus package, birth certificate (related to those persistent but unfounded rumors that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus ineligible to be president.),” the news organization stated.

Makana Shook, corporate communications coordinator for Queen’s, told WND, “The hospital is not allowed to give out any information to the public about patients without the patient’s permission, because of federal HIPAA law restrictions.”

Kapi’olani officials said they would release any documentation they may have about the president’s birth if the president gives his permission to make the documentation public.

The White House did not respond to a WND request for comment.

The question to the White House noted the multiple references to Queen’s. “Then, beginning sometime after the start of 2009, the president and various members of his family, including his sister Maya Soetoro, changed the story and gave interviews (or wrote letters as above) claiming President Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.

“Why did the president claim to be born at two different hospitals in Hawaii?” WND asked. “Which is the true hospital where the president was born?”

Snopes responded to a WND request for comment about the conflict between its report and Obama’s statement with an automated message that shed no light on the matter.

WND has reported that among the documentation – besides his birth certificate – not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

That may very well be intentional on the part of Obama, who used his first full day in residence in the Oval Office to issue an executive order restricting the release of presidential records.

“Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose presidential records, the attorney general (directly or through the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel) and the counsel to the president shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified,” the order states.

“If either the attorney general or the counsel to the president believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the president by the counsel to the president and the attorney general.”

The result is that the president ultimately would decide if those records can be released.

“After receiving such notice, the archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent president or by a final court order,” the order said.

Meanwhile, there are some who maintain Obama was not born in the U.S. at all as he claims, but in Africa.

An affidavit submitted to WND by Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya, asserts “it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya.”

Shuhubia further states in his affidavit that he visited Obama’s grandmother at her home in the village of Alego-Kogello, on Oct. 16, 2008, in order to conduct a telephone conference interview that would connect with McRae in the United States.

During the telephone interview, McRae specifically asked Sarah Obama two times, “Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya.”

“Both times she specifically replied, ‘Yes,’” Shuhubia affirmed in the affidavit.

“Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States,” Shuhubia continued in the affidavit.

WND also reported the office of Hawaii Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of Obama’s hospital-generated long-form original birth certificate.

The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.



Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

By Matt Cover

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718

President Barack Obama looks on as his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday May 26, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais )

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.

The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.

“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”

Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.

“Whenever you have a conflict like this, you’re likely to have it end up before the Supreme Court so they can decide the issue. If the Second Amendment is incorporated into the states, it’s going to jeopardize thousands of local gun laws, and the people who supported those gun laws are just freaked about that.”



The Bankrupt Party of Porkulus

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=598830

Let there be no doubt: Democrats are the party with two ideas -- borrow and spend. The only vigorous internal debate on the left revolves around two questions: How much and how much more? Even as the first trillion-dollar stimulus craters, the debt-o-crats are floating yet another grand act of generational theft to create the illusion of jumpstarting the economy.

Call it Spawn of Spendulus. Return of the Porkulus Beast. White House economic adviser Laura D'Andrea Tyson told an international economic conference: "We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus." Team Obama flack Robert Gibbs says the president isn't "ruling anything out, but at the same time he's not ruling anything in." Despite the inconvenient fact that less than 10 percent of the initial stimulus has been spent (or misspent), congressional Democrats remain "open" to the idea of digging a deeper fiscal hole for your children and grandchildren.

Porkulus One was a massive payoff to special interests and political constituencies (and dead people!) disguised as a job generator. A General Accounting Office analysis this week revealed that stimulus dollars allocated to states and localities are not being spent on what they're supposed to be spent on. States are making up their own criteria for spending. The most economically distressed parts of the country are getting shortchanged. School and transportation bureaucrats are using the money to preserve their own jobs instead of "stimulating" others. And assessments of the stimulative effect of the package are a joke. As House Republicans noted: "The administration has essentially 'rigged the game' of reporting the tangible effects of its stimulus program by creating an immeasurable metric -- 'jobs created or saved' -- that no one can disprove."

Irked by the mounting evidence of stimulus failure, Vice President Joe Biden griped at a spending event on Thursday: "This ain't about swimming pools and Frisbee parks and polar bear exhibits. This is about stuff that not only passed the test of jobs, but passed the smell test....All the talk about how we're gonna waste all this money, that's a dog that ain't barked yet. And it's not gonna bark on my watch." Yet last month, Sen. Tom Coburn exposed 100 smelly stimulus projects worth $5.5 billion, including $3.4 million for a wildlife "eco-passage" in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway; nearly $10 million to renovate an unused train station; and a $2 million "weatherization" contract awarded to a Nevada nonprofit recently fired for doing the same type of work.

After failing to recognize the inevitable and inexorable political forces that turned the stimulus into the mother of all Beltway boondoggles, media outlets are now playing catch up:

- USA Today reported this week that "counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain."

- ABC News reported this week that the failed stimulus tracking website run by the White House, Recovery.gov, will get an additional $18 million taxpayer-funded injection to support a "redesign." The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso points out that the contract was awarded to a Maryland firm whose donors have contributed $19,000 to Maryland's House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

- The Washington Times reported this week that "as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse" in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's backyard.

- And despite all the initial focus on basic infrastructure needs, Land Line magazine reported this week that "even with federal stimulus spending that put shovels in the ground on new infrastructure projects, analysts predict an overall decline of 4.3 percent on infrastructure in 2009."

The same underhanded, transparency-defying, earmark-stuffing process that marked the porkulus beast is dominating every other pricey piece of legislation hurtling through the Democrat-led Congress. The Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that passed the House two weeks ago contained bribes galore -- including a $50 million hurricane research center for Florida Democrat Alan Grayson and a $3.5 billion economic development "sweetener" package for Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur. The current healthcare takeover proposals feature a crucial payoff to Big Labor -- a golden exemption from any tax on union members' generous health care benefits.

The friends and patrons of Obama may be making out like bandits. But for everyone else, the Democrats' ideological bankruptcy comes at a nauseatingly steep price.



Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."

Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!

Ginsburg responded:

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

When pressed to explain what she meant by reproductive rights needing to be straightened out, Ginsburg said, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

Asked if that meant getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion such as a waiting period, the justice said she was "not a big fan of these tests."

I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman's decision. It's entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn't mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.

Three years ago, Ginsburg received some embarrassing national attention when she napped Actual artist rendition of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asleep during a hearing in 2006 on the bench during a court hearing.

"Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge," reported Gina Holland of the Associated Press.

The incident caught the attention of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who said:

"At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning – not denied by a court spokeswoman – Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.



What is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act?

It is a law that was adopted by the United States Congress and was signed into law by President Bush. What it seeks to do is, "to protect unborn children from assault and murder." It inserts provisions in the criminal code that make it a separate crime to kill a fetus in the womb. It uses language, such as "unborn children" and "child in utero" that defines the child in the womb as a human being.

The bill would make it a crime to kill or injure an unborn child during an act of violence committed against a pregnant woman. "We believe that when you have violence against a pregnant woman, you have essentially two victims. Obviously the mother is a victim, but you also have the unborn child as a victim and we believe there should be a separate penalty."

Pro-choice groups say the bill aims to undermine abortion rights. Such groups support the Motherhood Protection Act, which pushes additional penalties for violent crimes against women without recognizing fetuses as separate people. However the unborn child should be recognized as a victim. It's not about pushing the pro-life agenda. It's not about abortion. "This is about protecting unborn children, pregnant mothers. And it hasn't been controversial in those states where we do have it on the books. Unfortunately we still do not have this bill after trying for the past ten years, thanks in part to very powerful members of the North Carolina General Assembly such as Rep. Deborah Ross (Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net) and Rep. Joe Hackney "speaker of the house". (Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net).

In fact there have been almost no problems with it. So I think it's a common sense measure. My guess is, if we can get the NC House as well as the NC Senate to pass this, in a few years time people will look back and wonder what all the controversy was all about."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I strongly believe that the involuntary termination of a pregnancy through violence or other premeditated act must be treated as a violent felony. Under current state law, an unborn child is not considered a legal victim of a crime. In the case of homicide, North Carolina literally allows criminals to get away with murder.

Sadly, murder has become the number one cause of death for pregnant women in America. An estimated one in five women will be abused during their pregnancy. Women who choose to have their babies are dying (and, so are their babies) because of their choice. And most of the assailants are the fathers of the unborn children.

Violent attacks on pregnant women in North Carolina have increased since 2000 and highlight the deficiency in current law and the need for reform.

36 states currently have this law on the books, including States with a more liberal representation such as California. Scott Peterson of California was sentenced to death by lethal injection in March 2005 after he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn child, Laci and Conner, and dumping their bodies in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.

The Peterson case resulted in the passage of a national law and measures in state legislatures to provide more protection and justice for pregnant women and their unborn children when they are killed or injured in an attack.

The Justice For All Coalition "www.thejusticeforallcoalition.com" will continue to travel the state and educate the public, as well as put pressure on these powerful legislatures who represent their special interest groups rather than their constituents until this bill is signed into law.

As the organizer of this organization I need your help emailing these lawmakers or calling them.

Rep. Deborah Ross- 919-733-5773
Rep. Joe Hackney-919-733-3451

Together we can make North Carolina a safer state to live, work, and raise our families.

Jeff Gerber
Monroe,NC
704-564-0065
www.thejusticeforallcoalition.com



Kindness

by Author Unknown

One day a woman was walking down the street when she spied a beggar sitting on the corner. The man was elderly, unshaven, and ragged. As he sat there, pedestrians walked by him giving him dirty looks They clearly wanted nothing to do with him because of who he was -- a dirty, homeless man. But when she saw him, the woman was moved to compassion.

It was very cold that day and the man had his tattered coat -- more like an old suit coat rather than a warm coat -- wrapped around him. She stopped and looked down. "Sir?" she asked. "Are you all right?"

The man slowly looked up. This was a woman clearly accustomed to the finer things of life. Her coat was new. She looked like that she had never missed a meal in her life. His first thought was that she wanted to make fun of him, like so many others had done before. "Leave me alone," he growled.

To his amazement, the woman continued standing. She was smiling -- her even white teeth displayed in dazzling rows. "Are you hungry?" she asked.

"No," he answered sarcastically. "I've just come from dining with the president. Now go away."

The woman's smile became even broader. Suddenly the man felt a gentle hand under his arm. "What are you doing, lady?" the man asked angrily. "I said to leave me alone."

Just then a policeman came up. "Is there any problem, ma'am?" he asked.

"No problem here, officer," the woman answered. "I'm just trying to get this man to his feet. Will you help me?"

The officer scratched his head. "That's old Jack. He's been a fixture around here for a couple of years. What do you want with him?"

"See that cafeteria over there?" she asked. "I'm going to get him something to eat and get him out of the cold for awhile."

"Are you crazy, lady?" the homeless man resisted. "I don't want to go in there!" Then he felt strong hands grab his other arm and lift him up. "Let me go, officer. I didn't do anything."

"This is a good deal for you, Jack," the officer answered. "Don't blow it."

Finally, and with some difficulty, the woman and the police officer got Jack into the cafeteria and sat him at a table in a remote corner. It was the middle of the morning, so most of the breakfast crowd had already left and the lunch bunch had not yet arrived. The manager strode across the cafeteria and stood by the table. "What's going on here, officer?" he asked. "What is all this. Is this man in trouble?"

"This lady brought this man in here to be fed," the policeman answered.

"Not in here!" the manager replied angrily. "Having a person like that here is bad for business."

Old Jack smiled a toothless grin. "See, lady. I told you so. Now if you'll let me go. I didn't want to come here in the first place."

The woman turned to the cafeteria manager and smiled. "Sir, are you familiar with Eddy and Associates, the banking firm down the street?"

"Of course I am," the manager answered impatiently. "They hold their weekly meetings in one of my banquet rooms."

"And do you make a good profit from providing food at the weekly meetings?"

"What business is that of yours?"

"I, sir, am Penelope Eddy, president and CEO of the company."

"Oh."

The woman smiled again. "I thought that might make a difference." She glanced at the cop who was busy stifling a giggle. "Would you like to join us in a cup of coffee and a meal, officer?"

"No thanks, ma'am," the officer replied. "I'm on duty."

"Then, perhaps, a cup of coffee to go?"

"Yes, ma'am. That would be very nice."

The cafeteria manager turned on his heel. "I'll get your coffee for you right away, officer."

The officer watched him walk away. "You certainly put him in his place," he said.

"That was not my intent. Believe it or not, I have a reason for all this." She sat down at the table across from her amazed dinner guest. She stared at him intently. "Jack, do you remember me?"

Old Jack searched her face with his old, rheumy eyes "I think so -- I mean you do look familiar."

"I'm a little older perhaps," she said. "Maybe I've even filled out more than in my younger days when you worked here, and I came through that very door, cold and hungry."

"Ma'am?" the officer said questioningly. He couldn't believe that such a magnificently turned out woman could ever have been hungry.

"I was just out of college," the woman began. "I had come to the city looking for a job, but I couldn't find anything. Finally I was down to my last few cents and had been kicked out of my apartment. I walked the streets for days. It was February and I was cold and nearly starving. I saw this place and walked in on the off chance that I could get something to eat."

Jack lit up with a smile. "Now I remember," he said. "I was behind the serving counter. You came up and asked me if you could work for something to eat. I said that it was against company policy."

"I know," the woman continued. "Then you made me the biggest roast beef sandwich that I had ever seen, gave me a cup of coffee, and told me to go over to a corner table and enjoy it. I was afraid that you would get into trouble. Then, when I looked over, I saw you put the price of my food in the cash register. I knew then that everything would be all right."

"So you started your own business?" Old Jack said.

"I got a job that very afternoon. I worked my way up. Eventually I started my own business that, with the help of God, prospered." She opened her purse and pulled out a business card. "When you are finished her e, I want you to pay a visit to a Mr. Lyons. He's the personnel director of my company. I'll go talk to him now and I'm certain he'll find something for you to do around the office." She smiled. "I think he might even find the funds to give you a little advance so that you can buy some clothes and get a place to live until you get on your feet And if you ever need anything, my door is always opened to you."

There were tears in the old man's eyes. "How can I ever thank you," he said.

"Don't thank me," the woman answered. "To God goes the glory. Thank Jesus. He led me to you."

Outside the cafeteria, the officer and the woman paused at the entrance before going their separate ways. "Thank you for all your help, officer," she said.

"On the contrary, Ms. Eddy," he answered. "Thank you. I saw a miracle today, something that I will never forget. And... And thank you for the coffee."

She frowned. "I forgot to ask you whether you used cream or sugar. That's black."

The officer looked at the steaming cup of coffee in his hand. "Yes, I do take cream and sugar -- perhaps more sugar than is good for me." He patted his ample stomach.

"I'm sorry," she said.

"I don't need it now," he replied smiling. "I've got the feeling that this coffee you bought me is going to taste as sweet as sugar."



"The e-mail Bag"

Three boys are in the school yard bragging about their fathers. The first boy says, 'My Dad scribbles a few words on a piece of paper, he calls it a poem, they give him $50.'



The second boy says, 'That's nothing. My Dad scribbles a few words on piece of paper, he calls it a song, they give him $100.'



The third boy says, 'I got you both beat. My Dad scribbles a few words on a piece of paper, he calls it a sermon, and it takes eight people to collectall the money!'



An elderly woman died last month. Having never married, she requested no male pallbearers. In her handwritten instructions for her memorial service, she wrote, 'They wouldn't take me out while I was alive, I don't want them to take me out when I'm dead.'



A police recruit was asked during the exam, 'What would you do if you had to arrest your own mother?' He answered, 'Call for backup..'