ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090723

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

The key is not to prioritize what's on the schedule, but to schedule your priorities. -- Stephen Covey

All things are difficult before they are easy. -- John Norley



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"Now I can walk in Your presence, O God, in Your life-giving light." (Psalm 56:13)

Our confidence is in the ever-present nature of God. We can be sure that He sees us, walks with us, and loves us no matter where we are. In fact, God wants us to "consciously" live in His presence every day.

Brother Lawrence, a humble monk of the 16th century, authored a classic little book, The Practice of the Presence of God. For fifteen years, his responsibility was to wash greasy pots and pans in the monastery - a job he disliked. But practicing the presence of God transformed what he considered a chore into an exciting privilege. As Brother Lawrence said, "The most holy and necessary practice in our spiritual life is the presence of God. That means finding constant pleasure in His divine company..." Joseph de Beaufort, his close friend, says of Brother Lawrence, "The worst trial he could imagine was losing his sense of God's presence."

Every morning, I make it a practice to fall to my knees in prayer beside my bed. I ask my Lord to live His life in and through me throughout the day. My request is that He will walk around in my body, speak with my lips, use my hands and feet for His glory, and control my thoughts so they honor Him.

I encourage you to begin a daily practice of praising God during all your activities. But praise is just the beginning of a lifestyle of practicing the presence of God. Remember, wherever you go, He is already there.



"The Patriot Post"

"It behooves you, therefore, to think and act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail." -- Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1775


INSIGHT

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end." -- English author George Orwell (1903-1950)


GOVERNMENT

"Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections." -- George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams


POLITICAL FUTURES

"[Al] Franken is an admitted clown. As such, he will be the only admitted clown in the United States Senate, though he will be seated with such clownish figures as Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Harry Reid. ... Upon hearing of the [Minnesota Supreme] court's decision, Franken joked that he was 'thrilled and honored by the faith that Minnesotans have placed in' him. That is not a very funny joke, but Franken is not funny. By 'Minnesotans,' he probably is attempting irony in referring to his supporters on vote canvassing boards in several left-leaning counties, who turned up a sufficient number of thitherto-uncounted votes to give him the edge. In the Nov.. 4 election, Coleman won by 725 votes. After a recount, he still won by 215. Then Franken's 'Minnesotans' got busy canvassing. They demanded that votes once disqualified in their counties be counted. They found thousands of absentee ballots previously rejected for such indelicacies as fabricated addresses. Coleman cried foul and asked that one statewide standard be applied to all recounts. However, he got nowhere with this plea for equal protection of the law, and in the meantime, Franken's larcenous operatives picked up 1,350 more absentee votes, some bearing the names of pop singers. Ultimately, Franken's team managed a 312-vote victory from the 2.9 million votes cast. The Wall Street Journal was not alone in its judgment that 'Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.'" -- columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell


CULTURE

"The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called 'King of Pop.' Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the 'news' business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the 'news' of Congress and recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential? An alien arriving from space would find him celebrated for dressing in shiny socks and dancing the 'moonwalk.' His music broke sales records and sets dance floors hopping, and his videos made people say 'I want my MTV.' But all this happened a long time ago, when MTV was a music channel. That is not how Michael Jackson dominated the pop-culture news scene for the past 15 years or so. What about Michael Jackson, the man? Was he, in the end, a good man? It seemed no one asked. Everyone wanted to celebrate the mystique of Jackson, but no one was comfortable focusing on the real Michael Jackson.... The coverage was an ocean wide -- and an inch deep." -- Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell


THE LAST WORD

"Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents -- call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever -- do. Which brings us ... to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the 'organizing' streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? Well, he said that he would raise capital gains tax rates, even if it reduced revenues, as a matter of fairness. It's only fair to make everyone poorer if you believe profits are inherently evil. He told Joe the Plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. He talked about confiscating Exxon Mobil's profits and giving them to consumers, saying 'they are not going to give up those profits easily.' He called Chrysler creditors 'speculators' and castigated them for refusing to accept his extortionist reorganization plan. He berated Wall Street for making profits, saying 'now is not (the) time' for them to 'rake in profits.' He and his wife even railed against the pursuit of profit in their respective commencement addresses. He abused the power of his office to steal money from GM and Chrysler shareholders and transfer it to the proletariat, I mean, the United Auto Workers. He redistributed taxpayer money from those who have paid their mortgages to those who have not. He is desperately trying to spread the misery and impoverish businesses and individuals through his cap and tax plan, which no proponent of economic growth and prosperity would consider supporting. And in addition to gobbling up other businesses and industries, he is trying to nationalize medicine -- to siphon off the evil surplus value charged by doctors and insurance companies -- on the flawed Marxist theory that he can reduce costs overall, when the reason health care costs have already skyrocketed is that market forces have been suppressed in the industry. You don't have to call him a Marxist, but at least understand where his heart is." -- columnist David Limbaugh



"Heritage Foundation"

Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill

http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an ?Exchange-participating health benefits plan,? all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.

President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:

Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

Quick Hits:

Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: “Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill … the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. … The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”

According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion.

Thanks to Obama’s “sweeping agenda,” the lobbyists on K Street are “awash in cash.”
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop ?standards of measuring gender? — as opposed to using the traditional “male” and “female” categories — in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.



"The Web"

Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.



Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.



Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.

The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.

Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.

"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."

But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.

"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."

"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.

Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."

The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."

"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."

Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.

Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.

"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."

While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.

"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.

Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.

"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.

The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:

"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.

But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."

Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.

While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.

The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.



ObamaCare is a sick joke

By Jason Lee

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamacare_is_a_sick_joke.html

As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored...

By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.

Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.

The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you're happy, don't get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the bill proposed by House Democrats would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion.

Team Obama says the CBO has failed to account for plans to reduce waste and cut services. Unfortunately, reducing waste would account for only about 1% of ObamaCare "savings." Any other potential savings would have to come from reductions in patient care services.

In its "keep the plan deficit-neutral" charade, the Obama Administration indicates that it is counting on reductions in patient care in the form of cuts to the Medicare health program for the elderly. However, the American Medical Association, in its controversial letter of support for the Democrats' plan, thanks House leaders for repealing $230 billion of Medicare cuts.

Team Obama is also counting on savings from prevention initiatives. Legislation pushed by Senate Democrats mentions "prevention" repeatedly. But as the CBO has repeatedly pointed out, prevention doesn't generally save money.

Obama tells us he wants a public plan comparable to the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan Congress enjoys. This notion is a farce. Congress has a high-choice cafeteria plan that is indeed paid for by the public, but it is not run by the government.

Congress enjoys very special perks the rest of us can only dream about. There is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, and Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Is Congress going to provide us with VIP treatment?

ObamaCare will implement an oppressive health care bureaucracy with eye-popping complexity that would make Rube Goldberg's head spin.

When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn't think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama's sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.

The halcyon days of the 2008 campaign are long gone. Elections have consequences - broken promises, for example. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that Obama and friends will have to play by the rules they implement, right?

Wrong!

"Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill."

Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress "an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan." Fleming's resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.

Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can't blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.

Americans have lost their appetite for hypocrisy, reckless spending, and the intrusion of incompetent government into every aspect of their lives. Obama is trying to address one of these concerns by promising that he "won't sign any health-care bill that adds to the deficit", but it's apparently too little and too late. Support for ObamaCare is crumbling. Consider some of the most recent observations:

The Washington Post: "Months of relative cooperation among disparate interest groups in the heath-care reform debate appear to be coming to an end..."

Reuters: "Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama's signature domestic issue and a major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time..."

CNN: Six key senators - three Democrats, one independent and two moderate Republicans - sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for a slowdown in the push for a health care overhaul, in light of the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that the Democratic plan currently being considered would not cut medical costs.

WSB: "Last week saw a rollercoaster of events that seemingly gave momentum to the controversial health reform initiative and then saw it slowed down..."

Politico: Jim DeMint apparently smells the possibility of victory. "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

The Associated Press: "Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?"

Obama spent vast quantities of political capital and strained his credibility to the breaking point with the Chicken Little schtick he put on to sell the stimulus package. When it comes to healthcare, perhaps the sky is falling, but Americans don't seem to be listening anymore.

Obama's popularity is sagging, the tone is changing, and even his cheerleaders are losing enthusiasm. "What's in it for you? Pain and discipline!", they exclaim. "Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?"

When Obama took the White House, giving Democrats solid control of Washington, government-dominated healthcare seemed to be an inevitability. Now the picture isn't so clear. Conservatives have many reasons to be optimistic about their opportunity to defeat ObamaCare.



White House: Obama Made Same Abortion Pledge to Pope That He Made to Planned Parenthood

By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51304

(CNSNews.com) - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Monday that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007.

In a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama decried the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In a question-and-answer session after the speech, Obama said the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

While Obama did acknowledge a need to find “common ground” in the speech to Planned Parenthood, he spoke of it in the context of promoting contraception--not in the context of persuading pregnant women not to abort their unborn children.

“There’s a moral component to prevention. And we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging it,” said Obama. “As parents, as family members, we need to encourage young people to show reverence toward sexuality and intimacy. We need to teach that not just to the young girls, we need to teach it to those young boys. But even as we are teaching those lessons, we should never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control or a lifetime of illness because she doesn’t understand how to protect herself. That’s just commonsense. There’s common ground on behalf of commonsense—there we have an opportunity to move forward and agree.”

While visiting the Vatican earlier this month, Obama reportedly promised the pope he would work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. As reported by Agence French Presse, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Obama made the promise "very explicit" during his 40-minute meeting with the pontiff.

"The pontiff told me that President Obama affirmed his personal commitment to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States," Lombardi said, according to AFP.

On Monday, CNSNews.com asked Gibbs if Obama’s commitment to the pope to work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States means he supports an amendment to the health-care reform bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) that would prohibit federal funds from going to abortion through federally subsidized health-insurance programs.

Gibbs interrupted the question to say that Obama had said the same thing to Planned Parenthood in 2007 that he said to the pope this year.

CNSNews.com: “Going back to the President's visit to the Vatican, he reportedly told the Pope that he would work to and do all he could to reduce the number of abortions—”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs: “I think he said -- he said that in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, so yes.”

CNSNews.com: “Could someone reasonably say that in doing all you can do to reduce the number of abortions would also mean supporting the Hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit federal funds going to abortion?”

Gibbs: “Well, I have not seen the Hatch amendment. I know the president believes that current policy--certainly current policy for Medicaid prohibits federal funding for abortions. That’s the Hyde amendment. I think when it comes to designing a benefit package, I think the president and this administration agree that that's--a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.”

On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag would not rule out that he final health-care bill would include federal funding for abortion—just as Gibbs did not rule it out in his answer at the press briefing today.

“I think that that [abortion funding] will wind up being part of the debate,” Orszag told Fox News. “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”

Last week, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee declined to adopt the Hatch amendment, forbidding federal funding of abortion, in its version of the health-care reform bill.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, defended the bill’s prospective funding of abortion.

“We like the idea that people have choices and, indeed, the law of the land permits people to make those choices, and we respect that, and we are going to pursue that,” Dodd told CNSNews.com last week when asked about abortion funding in the bill. “Again, we do not want to discriminate when people have--they have convictions, moral convictions and religious convictions.”



PANCAKES

Six year old Brandon decided one Saturday morning to fix his parents pancakes. He found a big bowl and spoon, pulled a chair to the counter, opened the cupboard and pulled out the heavy flour canister, spilling it on the floor. He scooped some of the flour into the bowl with his hands, mixed in most of a cup of milk and added some sugar, leaving a floury trail on the floor which by now had a few tracks left by his kitten.

Brandon was covered with flour and getting frustrated. He wanted this to be something very good for Mom and Dad, but it was getting very bad. He didn't know what to do next, neither to put it all into the oven or on the stove, (and he didn't know how the stove worked!).

Suddenly he saw his kitten licking from the bowl of mix and reached to push her away, knocking the egg carton to the floor. Frantically he tried to clean up this monumental mess but slipped on the eggs, getting his pajamas white and sticky. And just then he saw Dad standing at the door. Big crocodile tears welled up in Brandon's eyes.

All he'd wanted to do was something good, but he'd made a terrible mess. He was sure a scolding was coming, maybe even a spanking. But his father just watched him. Then, walking through the mess, he picked up his crying son, hugged him and loved him, getting his own panamas white and sticky in the process.

That's how God deals with us. We try to do something good in life, but it turns into a mess. Our marriage gets all sticky or we insult a friend or we can't stand our job or our health goes sour. Sometimes we just stand there in tears because we can't think of anything else to do. That's when God picks us up and loves us and forgives us, even though some of our mess gets all over Him. But just because we might mess up, we can't stop trying to "make pancakes", for God or for others. Sooner or later we'll get it right, and then they'll be glad we tried.

I was thinking... and I wondered if I had any wounds needing to be healed, friendships that need rekindling or three words needing to be said, sometimes, "I love you" can heal & bless!

Remind every one of your friends and family that you love them. It's amazing at what those three little words, a smile, and a reminder like this can do.

Just in case I haven't told you lately... “I LOVE YA”!!!

Please pass some of this love on to others... suppose one morning you were called to God; do all your friends and family that they will know you love them!

And never stop making pancakes.



Do You Remember 1987.....

http://dailythoughtpad.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-you-remember-1987.html

I had forgotten all of this. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it?
Do you remember 1987.......

Trade Towers Before 9/11/2001

Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........

It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'

Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'

'No, sir,' continued Ollie.

'No? And why not?' the senator asked.

'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'

'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.

'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.

'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.

A couple of people laughed at the attempt.. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.

'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.

9/11

'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.

'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

By the way, that senator was Al Gore! (Thank you Al, you are such an embarrassment to Tennessee !!)

Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.

.. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.

After 9/11/2001

The Morals and Question from This Story…

If we don’t teach and learn history… there is a grave consequence!

It is a tough world and we need tough leadership!

Our own government, as that of most countries, lies to us, censor and skews the news and re-writes history!

Many of the same plus new “Progressives” are in power!!

If Al Gore was this wrong in favor of Osamba Bin Laden and against an American Hero like Lt. Oliver North can you really buy into his Global Warming… ah Climate Change misinformation galvanized by the Dem’s and Obama’s Cap-and-Trade (uh… Cap-and-Tax) Bill?

The Israelis were right…

Who will be the next Mohammad Atta? Perhaps one of the released Gitmo Detainees?

If you want God to Bless America, you need America to remember God’s name!

History repeats itself, if you don’t the lessons the first time



The Obama Administration Grants Miranda Rights Rights To Detainees In Afghanistan.

by Stephen F. Hayes

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp?pg=1

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today -- foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they're reading them their rights -- Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."

That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.

The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning -- so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."

But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."

According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people -- 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"

Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the

CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."

One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD



Obamacare for Illegal Aliens

by Michelle Malkin

Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America -- except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.

Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income, eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House Democrats' plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building a new bureaucracy. Heller proposed using existing state and federal databases created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.

If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.

The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., calls the proposition "too politically explosive."

But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.

"Explosive"? The applause certainly was. Obama's praise of the weakened immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from members of Congress at the S-CHIP signing event.

Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.

That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.

The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.

For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegal aliens are not getting free health care, and that even if they were, they would not be not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing non-emergency health services for illegal immigrants.

"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP. The Texas state comptroller put the price tag for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today reported that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28 percent in North Carolina alone. Clinics across the Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant care costs.

At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. "I'm just mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.

Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.



To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me

Written By Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio

"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.
It is the most-requested column I've ever written."

My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:

1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.

2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.

3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.

4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and
parents will. Stay in touch.

5. Pay off your credit cards every month.

6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.

7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.

8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.

9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.

10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.

11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.

12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.

13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their
journey is all about.

14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.

15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God
never blinks.

16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.

17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.

18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.

19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is
up to you and no one else.

20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no
for an answer.

21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie.
Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.

22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.

23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.

24. The most important sex organ is the brain.

25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.

26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will
this matter?'

27. Always choose life.

28. Forgive everyone everything.

29. What other people think of you is none of your business.

30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.

31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.

32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.

33. Believe in miracles.

34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did
or didn't do.

35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.

36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

37. Your children get only one childhood.

38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.

39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.

40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's,we'd
grab ours back.

41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.

42. The best is yet to come.

43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.

44. Yield.

45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift."

Friends are the family that we choose for ourselves.



"The e-mail Bag

Definition of Stop…

A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriff's Deputy.

The lawyer thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he's sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputies expense.

Deputy says, "License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What for?"

Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign "

Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."

Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"

Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"

Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not, you let me go and don't give me a ticket."

Deputy says, "Sounds fair. Exit your vehicle, sir."

At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the crap out of the lawyer and says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"