ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090715

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

I can change only myself, but sometimes that is enough. -- Ruth Humlecker



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in us:... patience..." (Galatians 5:22)

My good friend and spiritual mentor from many years ago, Dr. Henrietta Mears, firmly believed as a young woman that God would call her to go overseas as a missionary. But she was not blessed with good eyesight, which she recognized would be an obstacle to her service overseas. In time she realized God was not calling her into missions.

Ultimately Dr. Mears became the Director of Christian Education at the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, California. From that position she had a global impact. She certainly had a tremendous influence on Vonette and me, as well as Richard Halverson (who would become Chaplain of the United States Senate), Billy Graham, and thousands of others.

She founded Gospel Light Publications and Forrest Home Christian Conference Center, where hundreds of thousands experienced new life in Christ. But she had to be patient and obedient as God worked out His perfect will for her.

Step by step, God lays out His special plan for each of us. In His perfect time, God shows us what He wants us to see. We may be interested in the details of the plan, but He is always interested in the details of the relationship as we depend on Him daily. In our souls we may be saying, "Just tell me, Lord! I cannot wait---I want to know now!" But the gentle voice of the Spirit replies, Be patient. Know Me well, and the future will take care of itself, if you will simply trust Me.



"The Patriot Post"

"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." -- Thomas Jefferson



This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"Why would [a government plan] drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical." -- President Barack Obama



Hope 'n' Change: Welfare Roles Grow Despite 'Stimulus'

For the first time since President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-propelled welfare reform legislation in 1994, welfare numbers are rising in more than half of states nationwide, with increases climbing as high as 27 percent in Oregon, 23 percent in South Carolina, 14 percent in Florida and 10 percent in California.



Second Amendment: Philadelphia and DC

A Pennsylvania court invalidated two of Philadelphia's most recent gun-control provisions last week, but upheld three others. The two struck down were a ban on semi-automatic rifles and straw purchases of handguns. The three upheld require the report of lost or stolen handguns, a bar on gun ownership for those who are subject to "protections from abuse" orders, and permitting the temporary seizure of guns by police. The reporting provision is currently the only one in effect. In striking down the two bans, the Commonwealth Court determined that a 1996 ruling by the state Supreme Court meant that only the state legislature, not municipalities, can enact such gun legislation.

In Washington, DC, the city council expanded the list of approved handguns that residents can own in an effort to counter another lawsuit over its continued violation of the Second Amendment. A suit was filed in March over the restrictions, but more than 1,000 types and models have since been added to the approved list. Still, while DC residents are permitted to exercise their right to keep arms, they cannot bear them outside their own homes. And the District thinks that isn't infringement.



And Last...

The AFL-CIO apparently has gotten so lazy over the years that they've begun outsourcing their protests and shipping American jobs overseas. Lobbying congressmen on Capitol Hill for passage of the grossly misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act," union folks were passing out cardboard hammers with a union message and yellow plastic hard hats complete with a "Made in China" sticker on the inside. Spokesman Eddie Vale said, "Obviously our policy is to only use union vendors and it was a mistake by a new staffer who ordered them and unfortunately wasn't caught before they went out." Right, blame the "new staffer." No doubt another job "created or saved" by Barack Obama. Keep up the good, er, work, Eddie.



"FRC" (Family Research Council)

Senate poised to vote at any time on "hate crimes" legislation

http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147484834



Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians

For more visit www.FRC.org

While the Scriptures teach that both actions and attitudes are sinful (see Matt. 5:21-22), only our outward actions are punishable by law. In fact, Exodus 21-22 contains scores of laws and punishments against outward actions committed against others. However, no mention is made of the inward attitudes associated with those crimes.

Logic would suggest that violent crimes are inherently acts of “hate.” But the new category of law known as “hate crimes” involves punishing people not only for an outward act of violence, but also for the personal opinions which are thought to have motivated the crime. Homosexual activists and their allies in Congress are now pushing for a law (HR 1913/S 909) that would allow federal prosecution of any crimes allegedly motivated by bias, including bias against the victim's actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The latest federal hate crimes legislation says it only authorizes prosecution of those who cause or attempt to cause “bodily injury.”However, since violent crimes are already illegal, the “hate” label and federal intervention would be based on politically incorrect thoughts alone.

The truth is that wherever hate crimes laws have been adopted, there is an inevitable move to drop the requirement that there be an associated act of violence. In such cases, these laws have evolved to target what is regarded as hate speech and expression. What you say could literally land you in jail. According to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, hate crimes legislation could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Here’s how: Currently, every state has laws that prohibit conspiracy to commit a crime. Linked to hate crimes, preaching or teaching against homosexual conduct could be prosecuted as conspiracy to commit a hate crime.

For instance, a minister who preaches from Genesis 19 or Romans 1, referencing the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, could be heard by an individual who applies it in a way prohibited by a hate crimes law. Not only would the offender be prosecuted under this law, but also the minister could be prosecuted for conspiracy.

Hate crimes laws would radically impact our freedom of speech!

Hate Crimes Action Alert

For more visit www.FRC.org

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009: HR 1913 has passed the House, so the battle moves on to the Senate. The current Senate plan is to ammend Hate Crimes to an authorization bill to try to sneek it through. However, Christians all across the nation can make an impact on the outcome



Hate Crimes Action Steps:

1. Pray for National Awareness – While it might sound good on the surface (nobody is for hate crimes), this hate crimes law would be disastrous for our freedoms. Hate crimes legislation would:

• Create a special class based on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."

• Establish a two-tiered system of justice where people are given one penalty for their actions and additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.

• Jeopardize the Constitutional rights of pastors and religious individuals to peacefully and publicly disagree on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. Stay Informed – Sign up for the Washington Update at www.FRC.org and order a video copy of Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and SilencingChristians at www.FightHateCrimes.com.

3. Take Action – Some things you can do now:

1. Contact your Senators at (202) 224-3121 or www.FRC.org and tell them you are against Hate Crimes because of the threats to our Constitutional freedom of speech and religion.

2. Urge those who refuse to budge on hate crimes expansion to at least add a clear and a broadbased exemption sufficient to protect religious speech.

3. Share this message with four friends.

“I have a responsibility... to let people know that the way they live is wrong…. And... declare that if they turn around and follow Christ they will not come under judgment.” - Pastor Åke Green

Pastor Åke Green was sentenced on June 29, 2004 to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals in a sermon delivered in Borgholm, Sweden on July 20, 2003.



"ACU"

Obama and the Liberals don't want you or the American people to know what they are doing this summer.

While Americans are in the heat of summer, enjoying vacations with family and visits with the grandkids - Obama and the liberals within Washington are working to push government-run health care as fast as they can before the American people really know what is going on.

They want to catch us sleeping, they want us distracted. They think they can get away with it. They snuck through the stimulus and auto bailouts. That is why they want to pass a so-called health care reform bill before the August recess. They are using America's desire for some reform to force moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for a government-run "option" for health care.

As you will see in a video we made with Congressman and long-time medical Doctor Phil Roe (R-TN) recorded in his office just last Friday, this is part of the liberal's attempts to have government take over and control your health care. To view the video go here: http://www.conservative.org/DRPhilRoeHealthCare.html

We need to send a message now - right now - that American's don't need government-run health care.

SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

Before you sit there and think that we cannot have an impact - or that our work against the all out liberal assault coming from Congress is falling on deaf ears - consider this. Recently the Cap and Trade Energy Tax vote in the House was so close and so controversial, because of your voice, the liberal leadership in the Senate has put off acting on it anytime soon.

We can do the same here and now, we can help put the brakes on this attempt to have government takeover health care, now, today!

Look at these News headlines and stories:

"Health care reform proponents are growing pessimistic that they can meet President Barack Obama's August target for passing a bill." (POLITICO newspaper today)
The AP reported, "Officials push for health care despite delay," stating that Obama and Pelosi have hit a roadblock but they are not giving up. (Associated Press)
"President Barack Obama, after a week of diplomacy abroad, now faces the possible derailment of his top priority at home, the overhaul of the health-care system." (Bloomberg News)

We can do it. We can fight back and win. We can stop a liberal attempt to take over Health Care!

We know that the governments will only make health care worse, not better. Conservatives stopped the ill-conceived "Hillary Care" plan in the 1990s, let's fight back again together now!

SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

In the video with Congressman and Dr. Roe at

http://www.conservative.org/DRPhilRoeHealthCare.html he talks about all of the medical innovations we have seen in our nation.

Congressman and Dr. Roe also says our system is already better than that in Canada or England. Why would we copy a European-style system that doesn't deliver better care?

Why? ... Because the liberals just want bigger government and more control over your lives.

SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

In our video Dr. Roe notes a "public option," as Obama and Pelosi call it, is merely nice language to disguise a government takeover plan. This so-called health care reform plan will only provide coverage to a very, very small percent of the American population but it is estimated to cost more than $1 Trillion in taxpayer money.

Congressman Roe points out small businesses will drop health coverage first, then larger businesses. Soon everyone will be in government-run health care.

As a colleague here at ACU said, if you enjoy waiting in line at the state DMV office to get a driver's license, just think about visiting a doctor in a government-run health care system.

SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

Politico said today, "House Democrat leaders still hope to approve a robust new network of government-sponsored health care this year." However, moderate Democrats are starting to buck their liberal Democrat leadership.

Moderate Democrats are beginning to join Republicans in demanding that small business owners not be forced to provide coverage or pay into the government's plan (up to $750 per employee) - which is Obama's real goal. These more moderate Members met with Pelosi last week in what was called a rather tough meeting. Let's show them some support.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi hope that Americans will go about their lives this summer and that they can sneak this into law. Let's prove them wrong.

SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

There are many things happening on Capitol Hill this week. But this week, this issue is also important.

Please talk to your family and friends about this issue and help us send a message today.

Sincerely,

Dennis Whitfield
Executive Vice President

P.S. Last Thursday several reports came out about the massive tax increases needed to fund a government-run health care option. We all know that liberals estimate low. These tax increases could be absolutely huge when fully implemented. Don't allow them to harm our health care system and tax us into a full depression.



"The Web"

Obama snubbed in Moscow (video)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_snubbed_in_moscow_video.html



BORN IN THE USA?

Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up

Spokesman belittles WND reporter, asks 'what reporting' has been done

Joe Kovacs and Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103898

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs did not confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi'olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today refused to confirm that a letter posted by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu – purportedly from President Obama claiming the facility as his birthplace – is, in fact, real.

The issue arose today when Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked Gibbs about the letter, which the hospital also used in a magazine fundraising article.

However, when WND reported on the posted images and questioned their authenticity, the hospital concealed the online image, and then refused to confirm the letter even exists.

Gibbs' answer came in response to Kinsolving's question, which begins at the 55:27 mark into the video recorded by C-SPAN:

While you and the president were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature "Barack Obama," which stated, "The place of my birth was Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center." And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi'olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm?

Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be 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 for nearly six months on its website and used for fundraising before electronically hidden once WND disclosed it was not an actual paper letter, but merely HTML coding. The hospital and White House now refuse to confirm that a real document even exists.

Gibbs said, without responding directly to the question about the veracity of the letter, "Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital."

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

When Kinsolving asked when Gibbs could check, he responded.

"I will seek to interview whoever brought the president into this world. But can we just – I want to do this once and for all, Lester. Let's just do this once and for all. You can go on this – I hope you'll take the time not just to Google 'President, January 24, Hawaii hospital, birth' and come up with this letter, but go on the Internet and get the birth certificate, Lester, and put…"

When Kinsolving pointed out the image posted on various website's was not a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth, but a different "Certification of Live Birth" document, Gibbs said, "I know. Just a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the president was indeed born in the state of Hawaii."

But under Hawaiian law at the time of the president's birth, such documents were available for babies not even born in Hawaii.

Obama states in the purported letter that he was born at Kapi'olani. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website before being electronically hidden once WND publicized it.

Now the hospital refuses to confirm that a real document even exists. But a similar – although not identical – image purporting also to be a letter from Obama claiming Kapi'olani as his birth place appeared in the hospital's Inspire Magazine:

Then Gibbs, amidst a repeating chorus of guffaws and giggles from the White House press corps, started lecturing the WND correspondent, who is among a handful of the most senior correspondents on the White House assignment, about journalism.

"You know, Lester, I – I want to stay on this for a second, Lester, I want to stay on this for a second, because you're a smart man, right?" said Gibbs.

"Hypothetical," said an unidentified reporter.

"All right, all right, settle down in here. Only I get to make jokes like that," said Gibbs.

"Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America. And all of this incredible back-and-forth – I get e-mails today from people who inexplicably can figure out very easily the White House e-mail address, and want proof of where the president was born," Gibbs said.

"Lester, the next time you ask me a question I'm going to ask you what reporting you've done to demonstrate to your listeners the truth, the certificate, the state, so that they can look to you for that momentous search for the truth, and you can wipe away all the dark clouds and provide them with the knowing clarity that comes with that certainty," Gibbs said.

However, WND has reported that a wide range of Obama documentation – along with Obama's birth certificate – are not available, including Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

WND has reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama's birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama's birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.

And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president's supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.

When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility and used that claim as a major fund-raising tool commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.

WND has yet to be able to identify any physician or medical attendant present at Kapi'olani Hospital in 1961 who can recall Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, giving birth to Barack Obama at the hospital or who can identify the name of the attending physician.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!

To date, Obama has not revealed his original long-form, hospital-generated "Certificate of Live Birth" that includes details such as the name of the medical facility and the doctor who delivered him.

Here is an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician. Beneath it is the short-form "Certification of Live Birth" offered by Obama as proof of his Hawaiian birth. It is possible to have been born outside of Hawaii and still obtain the latter form, but not the former:

Long-form birth certificate from state of Hawaii (Image courtesy Philip Berg)

Here is the "Certification of Live Birth" presented by Obama:

Short-form "Certification of Live Birth"

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" – challenges that all have been confronted by attorneys acting on the president's behalf to keep his records sealed.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

Among the cases have been several from Democrat Philip Berg, who has alleged that not only is Obama ineligible to be president, he was unqualified to be the senator from Illinois and should be prosecuted under the False Claims Act.

The key question in the dispute also is being raised on billboards nationwide.

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

They are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.



Questions for Sotomayor

by Jed Babbin

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32648

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt) is rushing the Supreme Court nomination of Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to its first hearing on Monday.

Since President Obama made the nomination on May 26, we have learned a lot, but not enough, about Sotomayor’s background and performance in her twelve years on the bench, first as a district court judge and then on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

We know that Sotomayor is a self-labeled “affirmative action baby.” She was, as a Princeton undergraduate, already a political activist. She was head of the campus chapter of Acción Puertorriqueña, a Puerto Rican activist group. According to a Washington Post report, in April 1973 she wrote and made a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, accusing “…Princeton of an "institutional pattern of discrimination" in hiring "Puerto Rican and Chicano" faculty, as well as in admitting students from those ethnic groups.”
Her activism continued, apparently up to the moment she was appointed to the bench. She was a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF, now called “Latino Justice”), an activist civil rights group that frequently engaged in litigation and took positions that were far beyond mainstream legal thought in the United States.

Sotomayor has been a federal judge since 1992 and was elevated to the Second Circuit in 1998. Many of her most controversial statements (and all controversial decisions, of course) have been since she took the bench.

We know that she has proclaimed her racial and gender pride repeatedly and -- contrary to the most basic tenets our law and Constitution -- said that she embraces them in rendering her version of justice. And we know that she has been reversed by the Supreme Court in cases that raise serious questions about her judicial temperament.

It’s time to ask tough questions and insist on complete and honest answers.

Here are five questions which Sotomayor should have to answer before her nomination is voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

1. PRLDEF’s Positions Outside the Legal Mainstream: For twelve years (1980-1992), Judge Sotomayor served in various legal and policy making roles in the PRLDEF. She was at times a member of their Board of Directors, Vice President, and Chairperson of their Litigation and Education Committees. In 1981, PRLDEF wrote to the Governor of New York that “capital punishment represents ongoing racism within our society.” PRLDEF also took the position that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”

Question for Sotomayor: We know that you played an active role, frequently participating directly in the development of legal positions and strategies for PRLDEF. With respect to the 1981 letter on the death penalty and with respect to the opposition to Roe v. Wade, tell us precisely what your role was in developing each position and how you influenced its development.

2. Embracing Biases, not Facts: The Supreme Court only last month reversed Sotomayor in the New Haven firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano. In the lower court, the judge granted the defendant “summary judgment,” which meant two things. First, what the law (or the Constitution) says on an issue determines which facts are important to the case and which are not. When a court grants summary judgment, it means that there is no real dispute on the important facts, so no jury needs to decide what the facts are and the court can apply the law.

In Ricci, the district court granted summary judgment to the City of New Haven, saying that the important facts were not disputed and, on that basis, the white firefighters alleging that they had been discriminated against had no legal grievance.

Sotomayor (joined by two other judges) sustained the lower court’s decision without comment on the facts or explaining their application of the law.

The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s panel AND granted summary judgment to the firefighters, which means they found -- on the basis of the same facts -- that the firefighters had sustained a legal claim and that the city had no serious factual challenge to it.

In effect, the Supreme Court said that both the lower court and Sotomayor had based their judgments on the wrong set of facts.

In her 2001 Berkeley speech, Sotomayor said, “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

Question for Sotomayor: In reviewing the District Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, how did your gender and Latina heritage affect your choice of the facts on which to judge the case?

3. Second Amendment: In the 2009 decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, an opinion co-authored by Sotomayor, the Second Circuit upheld a law prohibiting the possession of a nunchaku, a martial arts weapon consisting of two wooden or steel rods connected by a rope or chain. Denying the defendant’s claim that his Second Amendment rights were violated, Sotomayor’s opinion said that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.”

Question for Sotomayor: In D.C. v Heller, the Supreme Court wrote that, “As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”…would fail constitutional muster.”

In light of that statement of the Constitutional law, do you believe a state or city which is not a federal entity can ban the possession of handguns?

4. International Law: Sotomayor wrote the foreword to Daniel Terris’ book, “The International Judge” published in 2007. In that foreword, Sotomayor wrote:

A proposed bill in Congress to prohibit the citation of foreign law in federal judicial decisions gave rise in recent years to a heated and extensive dialogue among American judges, academics and commentators on the appropriate role that foreign and international law should play in American constitutional adjudication.

But the question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution is not the only one worth posing. As The International Judge makes clear, we should also question how much we have to learn from international courts and from their male and female judges about the process of judging and the factors outside of the law that affect our decisions.

Questions for Sotomayor:

(a) Specifically how, and to what extent, should international law or foreign law be considered in interpreting the U.S. Constitution?

(b) What can we learn from international courts and their judges about the process of judging?

(c) How shall we differentiate among the male and female judges to learn from them?

(d) And, specifically and most importantly, what factors outside the law should affect your decisions?

5. Does an Unborn Child Have Constitutional Rights? In her interview with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sotomayor said that she had never thought about whether an unborn child has constitutional rights. How is that possible for a judge who has been on the bench since 1992? And how can that be reconciled with the actions of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which Sotomayor served as a prominent member from 1980-1992?

Question for Sotomayor: A child that is born is inarguably a person, and if that person is lucky enough to be born in the United States or come here later, he or she has rights under our Constitution. At some point in the pregnancy -- and we needn’t debate when that occurs in this hearing -- we believe the unborn fetus achieves the Constitutional status of a person, and thus has rights. Without debating when that moment occurs, do you agree that at some point an unborn child has rights under our Constitution?

If Sotomayor is asked those questions, the answers should illuminate for all Americans the answer to the question of her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, or the powerful court on which she now serves.

Teo Molin contributed research and reporting to this article.



Will Dems allow Goldman to manipulate a cap-and-trade market?

By William Tate

Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street leviathan that is heavily invested in the cap-and-trade carbon market scam, has admitted it has developed and used software that can manipulate such financial markets.

The revelation came during proceedings in a legal case with enough plot twists to make even John Grisham proud; it was made, not by Goldman, but by an assistant U.S. Attorney.

"(B)ecause of the way this software interfaces with the various markets and exchanges, the bank has raised a possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways," Joseph Facciponti told a federal magistrate in an unusual Saturday afternoon bail hearing -- and not just any Saturday afternoon, but the Fourth of July.

Facciponti's comments came at a hearing for Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs programmer, who had been arrested the day before, disembarking from a plane at Newark's Liberty International Airport. Aleynikov is accused of absconding with the code for the Goldman program and uploading it to a server in Germany, shortly before leaving the firm to take a job with a Chicago start-up for three times his $400,000 a year Goldman salary.

Aleynikov denies the charges.

Goldman uses the program for all of its trades

While Facciponti's remarks that the Goldman computer program could "manipulate markets in unfair ways" have received attention in the financial press, another, almost equally important statement made by Facciponti has gone virtually unnoticed. According to transcripts of the hearing, as posted at the Wall Street Journal:

"What the defendant is accused of having stolen from the investment bank (later identified by defense counsel as Goldman Sachs) is their proprietary, high-quantity, high-volume trading platform with which they conduct all of their trades in all major markets in the United States and other places." (emphasis added)

In other words, Goldman already uses the software. Implicit in Facciponti's court statements is that Goldman can be trusted not to manipulate markets but others can not.

Even if Goldman hasn't actually rigged markets, the program could be used to give Goldman other unfair advantages; business commentator and author of Bailout Nation Barry Ritholz outlines some possibilities at his blog:

Theoretically, this would allow GS to buy (or sell) stocks, selling (or covering) them back to the now compromised trader towards the end of their purchase (sale). Or, they could take a position, assuming there was more flow behind the initial order. Or, they could arbitrage a few fractional cents each trade.

Coincidentally or not, Bank of America analyst Guy Moszkowski says that Goldman Sachs is on pace this year to beat its trading-revenue record in 2007.

Goldman wouldn't manipulate markets, would they?

But what are we to make of Facciponti's comment that "there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways."

Which leads the inquiring mind to ask, How does Goldman know that its program has that capability?

Goldman, being the good corporate citizens they are, would never have used it that way.

Or would they?

A recent article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone accuses Goldman of manipulating markets to create speculative bubbles, including the internet bubble, last year's crazy ride in oil prices, and the current economic bust initiated by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

In his thoroughly-researched and well-sourced book, House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street ($27.95 Doubleday), William D. Cohan writes of a crucial moment in that meltdown. He quotes an unnamed Bear executive describing how they were trying to value, or "mark", mortgage-backed securities, a process by which the SEC required that they averaged the highest and lowest marks provided by other firms. The executive said the marks were coming in at 97 or 98 cents on the dollar, when Goldman Sachs pushed the market over the cliff:

"Suddenly we get these marks. Except these marks are not 98 to 97. They go from 98 to 50 and 60... and that is game f****ing over. By the way, the firm that sent us the 50 made a s**t pot full of money in 2007 shorting the f***ing market."

The effect of the new marks from Goldman Sachs .... was immediate and devastating...

With the hindsight of a few months, the Bear executive's fury at Goldman had not abated. "If everybody's getting overwhelmed by a tsunami and a couple of guys are making a f***ing fortune, that usually is grounds for at least taking a closer look to see what is going on, as to why they were making a fortune... I just told you a story that as about as relevant and about as potent as nitroglycerin, if you ask me."
-House of Cards, p 337

And, suddenly, mortgage-backed securities were melting like cheese on a summer picnic's hamburger.

Goldman defended their slashing of subprime securities prices in half, almost overnight, and a Goldman official told Cohan the firm "did not make nearly as much money in 2007 betting against the mortgage market as people think it did."

Just as Goldman's finger may have helped pop the housing bubble, its fingerprints are all over the start of that bubble as well, through its influence on Clinton-era policies.

Economist Dennis Sewell noted in The Spectator magazine:

The main thrust of the Clinton housing strategy was to increase home ownership among the poor, and particularly among blacks and Hispanics... standing in the way of the realisation of this dream were the conservative lending policies of the banks, which required such inconvenient and old-fashioned things as cash deposits and regular repayments - things the poor and minorities often could not provide.

The Clinton administration initiated its strategy through reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act, accounced in December, 1993.

Well-respected analyst Meredith Whitney has noted that home ownership in the U.S. "had been 64% prior to 1994 for as far back as the eye can see." After the new government policies, that rate climbed to 69%. Whitney told Business Week last December that she expects the financial crisis caused by the mortgage meltdown to last through mid-2010 because, "For 15 or 20 years cheap credit was extended to a lot of people who were not worthy. Now you've got to resize that business back to traditional, normalized credit."

Sewell in his Spectator article, wrote that to make sure the new policies were implemented, the administration set up "a network of enforcement offices across the country, manned by attorneys and investigators, and primed to spearhead an assault on the mortgage banks, bringing suits against any suspected of practicing unlawful discrimination, whether on the basis of race, gender or disability."

In other words, the Clinton administration, using the full force and authority of the U.S. government, bullied lenders into making questionable mortgages, accelerating -- if not initiating -- the housing bubble through its CRA reforms.

Goldman Sachs played a major hand in these Clinton-era financial policies through Robert Rubin, former Co-Chairman of the firm, who actually announced them on December 8, 1993. Rubin boasted that, "CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities around the country." (Emphasis added.) Rubin was then Clinton's influential Assistant for Economic Policy and later went on to become an even more influential Secretary of the Treasury.

Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone:

During his (Robert Rubin's) tenure at Treasury, the Clinton White House made a series of moves that would have drastic consequences for the global economy - beginning with Rubin's complete and total failure to regulate his old firm during its first mad dash for obscene short-term profits.

Taibbi adds that other Goldman graduates played a major hand when the market crashed, including another Goldman-ex turned Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson:

Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers -- one of Goldman's last real competitors -- collapse without intervention... The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.

The next bubble?

From the mortgage bubble, Goldman learned an important -- and very valuable -- lesson: Government policies, especially if shaped by a network of former Goldman officials, could be used to create vast profits, indeed whole markets.

This leads us to what Taibbi calls "the new game in town," cap-and-trade. Or cap-and-tax, if you prefer.

It is a potential trillion-dollar market, that had its beginnings in Chicago about the time that Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, even though the U.S. Senate had spurned the international agreement by a 95-0 vote. And Barack Obama has been involved in the potentially lucrative market almost from the start.

The Chicago Climate Exchange was formed to implement the carbon emissions trading gold rush Kyoto would have opened up; however, when President Bush withdrew from the protocol -- forever earning George Soros' enmity -- it looked like the exchange was dead. Enter Chicago's Joyce Foundation, a senior board member of which was one Barack Obama.

From Fox News:

Obama served as one of 12 directors on the Joyce Foundation board from July 1994 until December 2002, according to a Joyce foundation spokesman. But it was only in 2000 and 2001 that the foundation gave money to the Climate Exchange -- funds deemed by the exchange itself to be fundamental to its successful launch, and in fact to its early survival.

Having survived, thanks to the million-dollar bailout from Obama and the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago Climate Exchange went on to merge with Climate Exchange Ltd in 2006. Goldman Sachs took a 10% stake in the firm at the time and later increased its holdings to at least 19%. CCX is also 10% owned by Generation Investment Management, a firm founded and chaired by Al Gore and co-founded by the above-mentioned former Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson.

According to EnergyRisk.com,

"Goldman Sachs is a major trader of European Union allowances and is set to be a key player in the US emissions markets that are planned to start up at the end of the decade."

But the markets have to be created first.

Trading firms sometimes call themselves 'market makers' for creating the markets in which securities and other investments are traded. Goldman learned from the housing bubble that it could forego that risk by getting the U.S. government to take it for them. So, now Goldman is turning to Washington to do its bidding, specifically the Democrats in Congress and the White House that it expects to approve and sign cap-and-trade legislation. Democrats that Goldman has bought and paid for.

Taibbi writes that Goldman personnel -- it's not legal for the corporations, themselves, to make political contributions -- donated nearly four-and-a half million dollars to get Democrats elected last fall. And the Center for Responsive Politics (CPR)'s OpenSecrets.org reports that almost a million of that went to the man who helped keep the Climate Exchange alive back in 2000 and 2001, Barack Obama.

In fact, Goldman was Obama's largest private contributor and "was the biggest business donor to Democrats in 2008, according to a (CPR) report. Some 73 percent of Goldman Sachs's millions in 2006-08 donations went to Democrats," according to a March article by Kevin D. Williamson in National Review.

And Goldman wasn't alone. Sniffing the profits that Wall Street's biggest shark expects to make from the new market, other investment firms, like smaller sharks sniffing blood in the water, went all-in last year, too. According to OpenSecrets, investment and security folks shelled out $14,788,852 to Obama, while hedge fund personnel invested just over three million dollars on their man. Both figures are almost twice the amounts donated to the Republican candidate, John McCain.

Overall investment and financial institution personnel donated $87,965,961 to Democrats, or about 57% of their total donations, a sharp break from years past, when Republicans generally held a slight edge. The numbers are even more lopsided going into next year's congressional election with 66% of the money donated so far going to the cap-and-trade party.

These figures, of course, do not include donations made to certain PACS or 527's or George Soros's relentless efforts to get willing Democrats elected.

Taibbi accuses Goldman of riding from bubble to bubble, sucking all of the public's money it can from each bubble before moving on to the next. With Goldman's push for cap-and-trade, "now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet."

But, of course, Goldman Sachs would never manipulate markets.



Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this..... Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Here are some men and women who mocked God :


John Lennon (Singer):
Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

"Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but His subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him" (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.


Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died .


Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: "God, that's for you."

He died at the age of 32 of AIDS in a horrible manner.


The man who built the Titanic:

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it"

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic .


Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need your Jesus".

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment .


Bon Scott (Singer)

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

"Don't stop me, I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell".

On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit . (gross..)


Campinas (IN 2005)

In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.."

She responded: "Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here..... It's Already Full "

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken .


Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)

said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written. In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.



Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus. Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive. Jesus said, "If you are embarrassed about me, I will also be embarrassed about you before my father."



"The e-mail Bag"

A Sunday School teacher asked her class why Joseph and Mary took Jesus with them to Jerusalem . A small child replied, 'They couldn't get a baby-sitter.'



A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds. After explaining the commandment to 'Honor thy father and thy mother,' she asked, 'Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat
our brothers and sisters?' Without missing a beat, one little boy answered, 'Thou shall not kill.'



At Sunday School they were teaching how God created everything, including human beings. Little Johnny seemed especially intent when they told him how Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs. Later in the week his mother noticed him lying down as though he were ill, and she said, 'Johnny, what is the matter?' Little Johnny responded, 'I have pain in my side.. I think I'm going to have a wife.'