ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090831

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"Pulpit Freedom Sunday"

Please Pass This Along To All Pastors and Other Judeo-Christian Leaders!

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2009

There is great news about recent efforts to free pastors and pulpits from the threat of government interference, especially from the IRS. (No government restrictions were placed on the pulpit until 1954, when freshman U. S. Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson added a one-line provision to a Senate bill limiting the right of non-profits to engage in what had always previously been free speech.)

Last year, Alliance Defense Fund, a premier national legal group that defends the constitutional rights of Christians, organized a concerted effort to push back against this unconstitutional government intrusion. On September 28, 2008, numerous pastors participated in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" by preaching a sermon specifically addressing the candidates running for president in light of Scriptural truths.

For example, during the presidential primaries in May 2008, the Rev. Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in Minnesota told his congregation:

"If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president....They both support abortion and homosexual marriage, and the Scripture vehemently opposes both."

Months later, Pastor Booth preached a sermon addressing the 2008 presidential election. He then turned himself in to the IRS, sending them a copy of both sermons. The IRS has just notified Pastor Booth that it has closed the investigation against him, with no action taken! This is another of several recent cases where the IRS has closed the investigation without taking action against the church or pastor.

This year, the Alliance Defense Fund is encouraging pastors to participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" on September 27, 2009. According to ADF:

(1) ADF will encourage churches and pastors to exercise their right to comment on current government officials and the issues they espouse. Every church should feel very safe in commenting on the moral strengths and weaknesses of sitting politicians and the issues they promote without endangering their tax-exempt status.

(2) Some pastors may choose to exercise their full range of constitutional rights in preaching from the pulpit in ways that may bring them into conflict with the vague standards contained in the Johnson Amendment. ADF continues to believe that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to prohibit any part of a pastor's speech from the pulpit. (By the way, ADF represents pastors and churches without charge should any challenge be filed against them.)

Your church can help make Pulpit Freedom Sunday a great success. Now more than ever, the church must be heard on all the vital issues of the day. Pastors should not fear the IRS when they boldly confront the moral and social questions of the day in the realm of politics. Call ADF today (800-TELL-ADF) or visit their website (www.telladf.org/church) and let them know of your church's willingness to participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. ADF attorneys stand ready to answer your questions.

We hope you will be among hundreds of pastors who will sign up to participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Some will be addressing elections in their state or locality (e.g., Virginia, New Jersey, etc.), and others will be addressing policies being enacted by sitting politicians. Whatever the case, we strongly encourage your church to contact ADF and let them know that you will participate.

Daniel Webster rightly noted: "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it," and the freedom of the American pulpit is a liberty worth defending. On behalf of this effort, I agree with the prayer offered by signer of the Declaration Francis Hopkinson who, when contemplating America's struggle against its oppressors, fervently uttered: "And may Heaven prosper their virtuous undertaking!"
God Bless!

David Barton



"Daily Motivations"

The more you discipline yourself to use your time well, the happier you will feel and the better will be the quality of your life in every area. -- Brian Tracy



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"Forgive us our sins, just as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us." (Matthew 6:12)

In 1944, during the horrible days of World War II, in the Ravensbruck concentration camp, Corrie Ten Boom and many other emaciated women worked long hours every day under the watchful eye of the prison guards. That year, Corrie's sister, Betsie, died, a victim of the tortuous conditions.

In 1947, after the war, Corrie spoke to a group of Germans in a sparsely furnished Munich church basement. During her talk, she said, "Those who have been able to forgive their former enemies have been able to rebuild their lives...We, as Christians, have every reason to forgive each other, for our God richly lavishes His mercy on us."

When she finished, she was approached by a balding, heavyset man in a gray overcoat. Horror filled her as she realized he had been one of the prison guards .

He thrust out his hand. "How good it is to know that, as you say, all our sins are at the bottom of the sea!" Dumbfounded, Corrie did not take his hand.

He went on, "I have become a Christian. I know that God has forgiven me... but I would like to hear it from your lips as well. Fraulein, will you forgive me?"

Corrie remembered how he had pushed Betsie with the butt of his gun. Slowly, her hand moved toward his. Their hands touched and she finally vigorously shook his hand. With tears in her eyes, she said, "I forgive you, brother...with all my heart."

God loves us no matter what we have done. He forgives us when we ask. Since God richly lavishes His mercy on us, we must show mercy. And that means letting go of hurts caused by others.



"The Patriot Post"

"[W]hy give through agents whom we know not, to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, where we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see?" -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Michael Megear, 1823

"It is an unquestionable truth, that the body of the people in every country desire sincerely its prosperity. But it is equally unquestionable that they do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise." -- Alexander Hamilton, speech to the Ratifying Convention of New York, 1788

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." -- Declaration of Independence



Principium Imprimis -- First Principles

"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties, and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates...to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them." -- John Adams



"Liberty Counsel"

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

Liberty Counsel Petitions Supreme Court to Hear Graduation Free Speech Case

Liberty Counsel has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of Erica Corder http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/petition_cert_corder082708.pdf, a Colorado valedictorian who was denied her diploma until she wrote an apology for mentioning Jesus in her high school graduation speech.

Erica complied with the principal's demand for an apology because she feared the school would withhold her diploma, put disciplinary notes in her file, and generate negative publicity which could prevent her from becoming a school teacher. The principal sent the coerced apology to the entire school, and Erica received her diploma.

Erica sued the school, but the district court ruled that Erica’s speech was "school-sponsored," and thus the forced apology was not improper. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but that decision undermines student free speech rights and conflicts with an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a case that Liberty Counsel won after an 8½-year battle against the ACLU.

In the case of Adler v. Duval County School Board, the entire 12-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a policy whereby students select the content of their messages is student speech, not school-sponsored speech. Thus, religious viewpoints of students are protected by the First Amendment.

Please pray that the Supreme Court hears this case.

Read our News Release for more details. http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=848

Read Liberty Counsel's Petition to the Supreme Court. http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/petition_cert_corder082708.pdf

Forward this Liberty Alert to your entire e-mail list of family and friends, and encourage them to subscribe http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14103.

Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate https://dlq4.donatelinq.net/qv10/default.aspx?MerchantID=LibertyC4u&lnk= or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store

https://www.liberty.edu/libertycounsel/index.cfm?event=splash&pid=10769&dept=288.



"OneNewsNow"

Kennedy leaves 'sad legacy' on traditional values

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow

A Massachusetts pro-family leader says Senator Ted Kennedy was a "remarkable individual," but has left a "sad legacy" of opposition to traditional values. (View news video)

Edward "Ted" Kennedy, 77, passed away Tuesday night at his home on Cape Cod after a year-long struggle with brain cancer. He served nearly 50 years in the U.S. Senate, serving alongside 10 presidents and nearly as many governors in his tenure of public service. He is survived by his wife, a daughter, two sons (Patrick is a congressman from Rhode Island), and two stepchildren. (More details from Associated Press)

Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute says the death of the long-time Democratic lawmaker marks the end of an era and provides a time of reflection about what America's political leaders should be standing for regarding family, human sexuality, and parents' rights.

"Senator Kennedy was certainly opposed to many of our traditional value issues," the family advocate notes. "Nonetheless, we have to give credit that he was a man of integrity and well-esteemed by his [fellow] senators -- both those conservative as well as liberals."

Mineau says sadly, Kennedy "epitomized what is wrong with our leaders and their value of life." He notes the liberal lawmaker originally ran for office as a pro-lifer, but once he took office was lured to the pro-abortion side for "power and finances."

"He was a champion for abortion, later on a champion for same-sex 'marriage' and the pushing of the homosexual agenda in our public schools," he points out. "That's a very sad legacy."

According to Mineau, Kennedy's passing is an opportunity for Massachusetts to elect a future leader who "would be more open to the great need for the restoration of values in our culture.

Echoing Mineau, CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch acknowledges the pros and cons of Kennnedy's career, what he calls a "mixed legacy." He notes Kennedy's efforts to improve education and help the uninsured and the poor, but he says the late senator neglected to acknowlege his Catholic roots by protecting the rights of unborn children.

"Senator Kennedy's legacy evokes deep sadness. During his early days in the Senate, Kennedy fittingly included the rights of unborn children in his dedication to protecting the most vulnerable," Burch remembers. "Since that time, millions of Catholics have been both saddened and disappointed by his decision to abandon the defense of unborn children and their mothers, a position contrary to the common good."

Burch says he will join today with fellow Catholics to pray for the repose of Ted Kennedy's soul and the comfort of his family and loved ones.



"The Web"

Il Divo UK AV - "Amazing Grace"

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1785324681?bclid=1338935106&bctid=1913313052



Cloward and Piven - Influence of 1960s radicals in a nutshell

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8619916&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,542521,00.html



Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 show the Senate bill could give the president a "kill switch" on the Internet and allow him to shut out private networks from online access.

FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/

In this July 14, 2009 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at Macomb Community College in Warren, Mich. (AP)

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.
Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

"We think it's a very bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

"The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said.

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News.

A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported.

Spokesmen for Senator Rockefeller and the Commerce Committee did not return calls seeking comment before this article was published.

But Rockefeller, who introduced the bill in April with bipartisan support, said the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records.

"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."

The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures.

But many in the technology sector believe it's a job the government is ill-equipped to handle, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.

"Simply put, who has the expertise?" he told FOXNews.com in April. "It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard."

Clinton, of the Internet Security Alliance, praised President Obama's May science policy review, which he said would take cybersecurity in the right direction by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures.

But he faulted the Senate bill, which he said would centralize regulations for an industry that is too varied to fall under the control of a single set of rules without endangering the economy and security.

"We think a lot of things need to be done to enhance cybersecurity," he told FOXNews.com, but this bill is "not something that we could support."



Cheney: Obama's CIA Probe a 'Political Act'

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/cheney_cia_investigation/2009/08/28/253839.html?s=al&promo_code=8424-1

Former Vice President Dick Cheney Friday called a Justice Department probe into alleged abusive interrogation techniques by CIA agents as an "outrageous political act" that is sure to weaken national security and endanger lives.

In an excerpt from an interview to be aired this weekend on “Fox News Sunday,” Cheney said the investigation would do long term damage to the country's ability to protect itself.

On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced he had named assistant U.S. attorney John Durham to review the CIA interrogations of detainees at secret sites overseas to determine whether any laws were broken.

The move represented a flip-flop from the much-stated position of President Barack Obama, who has said repeatedly that he did not want to launch investigations that could demoralize our intelligence services at a time when the country is fighting two foreign wars. Already, reports indicate that Director of Intelligence Leon Panetta was angry and may ultimately resign over the investigation, which he had vigorously fought against.

"We had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, 'How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?'" Cheney said.

"Instead, they're out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions -- threatening contrary to what the president originally said. They're going to go out and investigate the CIA personnel who carried out those investigations," Cheney added.

Durham is tasked with looking at data obtained about enhanced interrogation techniques to determine whether criminal acts were committed. The data are the same previously reviewed by career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the CIA is headquartered. The data led to one arrest and conviction.

Cheney has for months has demanded the CIA release materials to show the effectiveness of harsh tactics in enabling interrogators to get information used to thwart planned attacks.

This week, the CIA's inspector general released a declassified report on the use of enhanced interrogation tactics. The report said that CIA agents got valuable information but critics insist the results did not justify the methods.

GOP lawmakers with expertise in intelligence issues have told Newsmax that the probe is likely to descend into a partisan witch hunt to placate Obama’s liberal base, which has pushed for an investigation into the CIA’s conduct during the war on terror for several years.

“This operation that he has announced really goes back and plows ground that has already been covered by the Department of Justice,” Sen. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Newsmax.TV. The CIA inspector general's report "was turned over to the Department of Justice. They brought one criminal prosecution. The rest of the actions they figured did not have enough basis for criminal prosecution and the agency itself took disciplinary action.

“So I don’t know what he hopes to prove other than to satisfy the president’s left-wing agenda. He’s going to do everything he can to tar the reputation of the people who protected us after 9/11.”



Kit Bond: Obama Mounting 'Witch Hunt' on CIA for Political Gain
By: Ashley Martella

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bond_obama_cia_holder/2009/08/27/253105.html?s=al&promo_code=86C0-1

Before Attorney General Eric Holder announced he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists, Sen. Kit Bond and eight other GOP senators wrote a letter imploring him not to go down this road.

Holder ignored their plea, and announced his decision Monday. Bond tells Newsmax.TV that Holder made a big mistake.

“We expected to get a response from him because he told me personally that he didn’t intend to go back and open up a criminal witch hunt on the CIA,” the Missouri Republican says. “What he has done now is one more step to put the CIA operatives in a CYA [cover your a**] mode where they are worried about whether somebody is going to watch their backs or stab them in the back.”

See Video: Sen. Kit Bond talks about the damage an investigation of the CIA will do to national security - Click Here Now http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=35410360001

Does Bond feel as though Holder lied to him?

“I can’t say he lied to me, but I specifically asked him about the suggestions from the extreme left wing at the time that they go back and open criminal investigations and he assured me that it didn’t make sense to go back and look at people who were operating under lawful opinions at the time,” Bond recalls.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee notes that Justice Department attorneys have examined the few cases of possible CIA abuse and dismissed them as meritless.

“This operation that he has announced really goes back and plows ground that has already been covered by the Department of Justice,” Bond says. The CIA inspector general's report "was turned over to the Department of Justice. They brought one criminal prosecution. The rest of the actions they figured did not have enough basis for criminal prosecution and the agency itself took disciplinary action.

“So I don’t know what he hopes to prove other than to satisfy the president’s left-wing agenda. He’s going to do everything he can to tar the reputation of the people who protected us after 9/11,” Bond tells Newsmax.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said the CIA interrogators deserve the American people's gratitude and not to be targets of political prosecutions. Bond agrees.

“That’s pretty much what I’m hearing from my people in Missouri. They say the CIA working with all the law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the military overseas did the best they could piecing together the information that led to collection of enough information to disrupt an attack at Heathrow Airport in London and the Liberty Towers in Los Angeles.”

People who live in those locations should be particularly grateful to the CIA, Bond says.

Does it bother Bond that, except for Sen. Joe Lieberman, no Democrat spoke out against what Holder did?

“Unfortunately I gather they’re in a circle-the-wagons mode and they recognize the political gain that I suppose the administration hopes to gain from opening up this closed chapter even though it was something that President Obama promised he would not do. He said he’s going to look forward. This is looking backward and he told the CIA he had their back; looks to me like they’re stabbing them in the back.”

The four-term Missouri Republican, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of this term, tells Newsmax.TV that Holder’s action not only hurts the CIA and U.S. partners overseas who depend on the United States to keep secrets on intelligence matters but also helps al-Qaida and other enemies.

It gives them “all kinds of new ammunition to say that even the administration thinks it was a bunch of criminals who kept our country safe from attacks after 9/11,” he says.

How he feel about Obama's taking future interrogations out of the hands of the CIA and running them out of the White House through the National Security Council?

“That one is really bizarre. My first reaction was what does the White House have against Leon Panetta? It’s a vote of no confidence not only in the terror fighters who kept us safe since 9/11, but their very own CIA director. Apparently taking over Chrysler and Citigroup were not enough, and the White House now wants to take over from the CIA how we interrogate Osama bin Laden. Even the Democrats’ favorite boogeyman, Dick Cheney, did not try to take over intelligence functions from the CIA."



Obamacare: The Only Exit Strategy

by Charles Krauthammer

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/08/28/obamacare_the_only_exit_strategy?page=full&comments=true

WASHINGTON -- Obamacare Version 1.0 is dead. The 1,000-page monstrosity that emerged in various editions from Congress was done in by widespread national revulsion not just at its expense and intrusiveness but at the mendacity with which it is being sold. You don't need a Ph.D. to see that the promise to expand coverage and reduce costs is a crude deception, or that cutting $500 billion from Medicare without affecting care is a fiction.

But there is an exit strategy. And a politically clever one, if the Democrats are smart enough to seize it.

(1) Forget the public option. Whatever the merits, and they are few, it is political poison. It dies by the Liasson Logic, the unassailable observation by NPR's Mara Liasson that there are no liberal Democrats who will lose their seats if the public option is left out, while there are many moderate Democrats who could lose their seats if the public option is included.

(2) Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling. People see (correctly) such Medicare-paid advice as subtle encouragement to voluntarily refuse treatment. People don't want government involvement in a process they consider the private province of patient, family and doctor. The Senate is already dropping it. The House must follow.

(3) Soft-pedal the idea of government committees determining "best practices." President Obama's Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research was sold as simply government helping doctors choose the best treatments. But there are dozens of medical journal review articles that do just that. The real purpose of FCCCERs is ultimately to establish official criteria for denying reimbursement to less favored (because presumably less effective) treatments -- precisely the triage done by the NICE committee in Britain, the Orwellian body that once blocked access to a certain expensive anti-blindness drug until you went blind in one eye.

(4) More generally, abandon the whole idea of Obamacare as cost-cutting. True, it was Obama's original rationale for creating a whole new entitlement at a time of a sinking economy and a bankrupt Treasury. But, as many universal-health care liberals complain, selling pain is poor salesmanship.

(5) Promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one -- Obamacare 2.0 -- promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick, and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement.

What's not to like? If you have insurance, you'll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.

And here's what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities. No longer able to control whom they can enroll, whom they can drop and how much they can limit their own liability, they will live off government largesse -- subsidized premiums from the poor; forced premiums from the young and healthy.

It's the perfect finesse -- government health care by proxy. And because it's proxy, and because it will guarantee access to (supposedly) private health insurance -- something that enjoys considerable Republican support -- it will pass with wide bipartisan backing and give Obama a resounding political victory.

Isn't there a catch? Of course, there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.

But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we.



FAITH UNDER FIRE
IRS investigation of church 'closed'

Pastor addressed 'moral' qualifications of political candidates

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105375

The Internal Revenue Service says it has closed an investigation into a Minnesota pastor's sermons just before the 2008 election that addressed the moral qualifications of the political candidates.

According to a letter posted online by the Alliance Defense Fund, which created a Pulpit Freedom Sunday to challenge IRS censorship of pastors' speech, the Dallas, Texas, office of the IRS notified Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn., the review was being closed.

"The IRS may commence a future inquiry to address the concerns described … after it resolves [a] procedural issue," said the letter, signed by Sunita B. Lough.

The ADF said Pastor Gus Booth had preached on moral issues as a part of the Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Initiative last year.

"Booth originally sent the IRS a copy of a sermon he preached in May 2008 with regard to the primary elections. After participating in the Pulpit Initiative's Pulpit Freedom Sunday Sept. 28, Booth also sent the agency his sermon regarding the general election. After launching an audit of the church in August 2008, the IRS has now stated in a letter that it is closing its examination of the sermons due to a procedural problem," the ADF said.

"Pastors have a right to speak freely from their pulpits. Something is very wrong in America when free speech is held hostage by bungling bureaucracies," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.

"This latest action from the IRS continues to leave churches in limbo when it comes to speaking freely from their pulpits. It illustrates everything that is wrong with the current enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. After an 11-month audit, it is disingenuous for the IRS to simply close the file and walk away as if nothing happened."

Since the Johnson Amendment was added to the Federal Tax Code in 1954, the IRS has issued increasingly vague guidance on the law, which limits the First Amendment rights of pastors speaking from the pulpit.

But the ADF said the IRS has continued to launch investigations while avoiding court review of the constitutionality of its actions.

"The IRS apparently has no desire to clarify the law for churches and has studiously avoided a court confrontation over this issue for years," Stanley explained. "They continue to vaguely interpret the law, leave churches guessing as to what the law actually means, and enforce the Johnson Amendment through fear and intimidation."

ADF attorneys say the IRS could have continued its investigation of Warroad Community Church and reached a conclusion on the merits of the case, which they argue is the unconstitutionality of the Johnson Amendment.

"Instead of standing and fighting in court, the IRS prefers to run the other way," said Stanley. "ADF would likely have waived any complaint about procedural concerns involved in the investigation stage of the audit in order to reach the merits of the case and clarify the law. Once a federal court has an opportunity to review the Johnson Amendment, we believe it will not take long for the court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Pastors have the right to preach from their pulpits on all issues, including candidates and elections. No pastor should fear the IRS."

The ADF said dozens of pastors partipicated in the Pulpit Freedom Sunday. They used Sept. 28, 2008, to address the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office.

WND reported when the IRS said it was dropping a two-year investigation into another church – this one in Kansas – over similar issues.

As WND reported, Wichita, Kan., Pastor Mark Holick's church, Spirit One Christian Center, was targeted by the IRS in April 2007 for "engaging in political activities."

One of his messages said, "Sebelius accepted $100,000 from abortionist Tiller, price of 1,000 babies." A separate posting repeated President Obama's statement from a campaign speech about sex education: "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby."

The notice Holick received from the IRS warned him about putting his Christian beliefs on the sign, and he responded that he would continue to preach the Word of God.

He explained the signs all "are spiritual messages that communicate God's truth or are directly related to messages in the Bible." He also provided the IRS with a list of dozens of biblical instructions, including "to lift up Jesus, to rebuke sin, to save babies, to be honest, to take a righteous stand."



Fatal Flaw of Democracies

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33267
"We just can't afford it!"

Not long ago, every America child heard that, at one time or another, in the home in which he or she was raised.

"We just can't afford it!" It may have been a new car, or two weeks at the beach, or the new flat-panel TV screen.
Every family knew there were times you had to do without. Every father and mother has had to disappoint their kids with those words. Why is it that what parents do many times a year politicians seem incapable of doing: saying no.

How many times in the last decade have the political leaders of either party stood up and declared, "No, we cannot afford this."

Consider. Friday, the White House conceded that the deficits over the next 10 years will total $2 trillion more than they had reported just months ago. Instead of $7.1 trillion, we will run $9 trillion in deficits.

Meanwhile, the White House demands a new entitlement -- health care coverage for 47 million uninsured who can't afford it or refuse to buy it -- that will cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years. Can we afford this -- now?

"We can't afford not to," comes the retort. This is "a core ethical and moral obligation," says Barack Obama.

But is it not a core ethical and moral obligation not to debauch the currency in which most of the hard-earned wealth of the American people is invested? Yet, as Warren Buffett writes in The New York Times, collapse of the dollar and the end of its days as the world's reserve currency is what we are risking.

Government expenditures are running at 185 percent of revenue, which is like the lone family breadwinner earning $50,000 a year, while the family spends $92,500 a year. With families that do that, it is not too long before the credit cards are cut off, the mortgage is called in and the family Chevy is repossessed.

According to those same White House figures, this year's deficit will be closer to $1.6 trillion than the $1.8 trillion previously projected. Now, there are only three basic ways to finance that deficit.

The first is by borrowing the savings of one's own citizens, thus consuming the seed corn of the private economy. The second is by borrowing from abroad. The third is by having the Fed, "through a roundabout process," writes Buffett, "printing money."

Assume the Treasury borrows most of the savings of the American people this year, say, $500 billion. Then Uncle Sam is able to persuade Beijing to buy another $500 billion in Treasury bonds. The Fed must still run the printing presses to create another $600 billion.

How long before our Chinese, Japanese and OPEC creditors conclude that the Americans are depreciating their currency, and dump their U.S. Treasury bonds, or demand a higher rate of interest to cover the risks of their dollar-denominated assets sinking in value?

Can anyone believe the dollar can even retain its present diminished purchasing power if we run $9 trillion in deficits over 10 years? How long before producers conclude the same and start to demand more dollars for their goods -- and inflation takes off?

As Buffett argues, even when the U.S. economy returns to full employment, the new tax revenue it would throw off cannot close a deficit of that size. One must either slash spending or raise taxes to balance a budget where the feds are spending a fourth of gross domestic product.

But how do we cut spending when the five largest items in the budget -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt and national defense -- are untouchables and growing faster then the 3 percent to 4 percent a year a full-employment economy can manage?

Are we going to cut veterans benefits, spending on our crumbling infrastructure or education, when Obama is promising every kid a college degree? Are we going to cut funds for Afghanistan and Iraq, and risk losing both wars? Are we going to cut foreign aid after Hillary Clinton has been touring Africa telling one and all America is here to stay?

How about cutting funds for food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit? Good luck. How about PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts? Just try it.

Does either party have any plan to cut federal spending from today's near 28 percent of GDP to the more traditional 21 percent?

George W. Bush didn't even try, and Obama is making that Great Society Republican president look like Ron Paul.

When a democracy reaches a point where the politicians cannot say no to the people, and both parties are competing for votes by promising even more spending or even lower taxes, or both, the experiment is about over.

"Remember," said John Adams, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."



Barack Obama’s Civilian Army

http://texan2driver.wordpress..com/

Brown Shirts. A para-military force outside the law being used to strong arm people and silence dissent. That’s what the Brown Shirts did in the 30’s, and that’s what Obama’s fledgling army is doing now. Oh, they’re not as well organized and wearing one distinct uniform… yet. But the SEIU shirts that many are wearing are a start. Make no mistake, unless we stand up to and see to the dismantling of this “army” of thugs, any who dissent with Obama will wind up just like the Jews did in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s. He is a despot looking for a throne to occupy. The White House is just a stop on the way to that throne. Obama will bring violence to this nation if he continues to pursue this course. His quest for absolute power must be stopped.

WE, the Americans who love liberty and respect our Constitution, are Obama’s enemy.




"The e-mail Bag"

Sometimes, even "lawyers", allow their mouths to "our talk" their brain(?).

ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?



ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.