ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090909

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

Add more therapeutic humor to your workplace. Watch a funny video during lunchtime at least once a week. Ask people to bring in their favorites. A study has shown that people who watched funny videos before taking a creativity test scored 300-500% better than those who watched something "intellectual"! -- Barbara Glanz



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"He has rescued us from the one who rules in the kingdom of darkness, and He has brought us into the Kingdom of His dear Son." (Colossians 1:13)

Jesse Blocker had his first taste of alcohol at the age of eight. By age fourteen, he was an alcoholic. By age thirty-six, he was a hopeless drunk living on the streets. But God had another plan for Jesse's life.

One night after getting drunk, he passed out on the railroad tracks. Several days later he awoke in the hospital with both legs missing and one arm mangled courtesy of a passing freight train. After his release from the hospital, Jesse went back to drinking.

The believers at Pine Castle United Methodist Church heard about Jesse's tragic accident and began to pray for this desperate man. Delores Kagi and a friend tried to reach out to him but Jesse continued to drink.

One day, Jesse and a friend were drinking on the pier at Lake Conway. Jesse tried to commit suicide by rolling himself off the pier. As he was sinking to the bottom, he cried out to God and said, "Dear Lord God, in the name of Jesus..."

That Wednesday night he rolled into the sanctuary and up to the altar. The believers gathered around him as he wept his way to repentance and forgiveness. Jesse's life was forever changed. Many years have passed since then. Today, Jesse reaches out to the homeless, the alcoholic, and the addict with the good news of Jesus Christ.

Just as the living Christ dramatically transformed Jesse's life, you, too, can find the power to change. Like Jesse, your life can reflect God's glory to your world.



"The Patriot Post"

"To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence." -- James Madison



On Cross-Examination

"I'm a Marine Corps vet. And, like you, I did swear an oath to defend my Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. .... Now, I heard you say tonight ... that you're going to let us keep our health insurance. Well, thank you. It's not your right to decide whether or not I keep my current plan or not. That's my decision. ... I've heard recently in the media you and some other people on the national political stage call us 'brown shirts' because we oppose [government health care]. ... A little history lesson: The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm. ... What I want to know is, as a Marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I've kept my oath. Do you ever intend to keep yours?" -- Marine Corps vet David Hedrick at a town hall meeting in Clark County, Washington, speaking (with resounding applause) to Democrat Rep. Brian Baird



So This Is Hope 'n' Change?

In May, when the federal deficit was projected to be $7 trillion over the next decade, President Barack Obama was asked, "At what point do we run out of money?" His reply was actually rather candid: "Well, we are out of money now," he said. Last Friday, the administration adjusted its deficit projection -- upwards, of course. The White House now says the number will reach $9 trillion, including $1.6 trillion this year and $1.5 trillion next year. So much for The One's promise to end the years of "borrow and spend" budgeting.

The Congressional Budget Office simultaneously projected a deficit of $7 trillion over the next decade, a lower number because the CBO considers only current law, not White House proposals. The Wall Street Journal reports that "these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019 -- and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is 'unsustainable,' but even this forecast may be optimistic."

Among the problems with the White House estimate is that it depends, in part, on raising $640 billion through the cap-and-tax bill as well as another $200 billion in international business taxes. Both bills face opposition in the Senate, even from some Democrats. And these new taxes aren't guaranteed to produce more federal revenue. Instead, we can count on cap-and-tax to depress the economy, resulting in less revenue.. The White House already expects unemployment to hit 10 percent this year.

The CBO estimate, meanwhile, is based on the ridiculous premise that Congress will hold spending to the rate of inflation. The Journal remarks, "CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth." The CBO also assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts will expire, even those for lower and middle class families.

Finally, the president's crown jewel, ObamaCare, projected to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years, is entirely omitted from the deficit estimate because Obama pledges that it won't add to the deficit. Next, he'll be trying to sell us some oceanfront property in Arizona.



The War on the CIA

On Monday, the Obama administration opened up a new, multi-pronged front in their war on America's security. The White House announced that a special terrorism interrogation team, supervised by the White House and restricted to using the relatively benign Army Field Manual's interrogation guidelines, would be created to take the lead from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on terrorist interrogations. Also, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would reopen some terrorist detainee abuse cases, which could expose current or former CIA employees and contractors to prosecution for alleged "torture" of terrorism suspects.

Holder's decision was supported by the DOJ's laughably titled Office of Professional Responsibility, which has been whining about the CIA for five years and now has an advocate in Obama's America-hating Attorney General. The DOJ also released a 2004 report -- held up for security reasons -- that described the CIA's interrogation and detention techniques.. CIA Director Leon Panetta, who has at least tried to stand up for his people, reportedly was so upset at the CIA being made a left-wing target that he threatened to resign. After all, as The Wall Street Journal writes, "Interrogations were carefully limited, briefed on Capitol Hill, and yielded information that saved innocent lives."

The ultimate result of targeting the CIA will be a hesitant, demoralized intelligence agency. But since when has Obama cared about national security?



Left-Wing Liberalism To The Death

Celebrating "the Lion's" Liberalism - "America mourns the lion of the Senate....There is, of course, no royal family in this country. The Kennedys, perhaps, the closest we've ever had....For nearly half a century in the Senate, Ted Kennedy spoke for people who had no voice -- the poor and the disabled, children and the elderly." -- Katie Couric kicking off the August 26 CBS Evening News. (Katie Couric failed to mention that so many more had "no voice", as Sen. Kennedy was the "king" of abortion legislation. Millions died because of his authorized and support of this deadly legislation). - oyh



"The Web"

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

Arguments planned Jan. 11 for major Obama challenge

To read the entire article, go to the "link" below. - oyh

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Is this the footprint of baby Barack Obama?

A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party's chairman, also were restored to the case.

Want to know for certain where Obama was born? Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz' motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president's still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz' challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama's eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief."



What is God's Love?

Chuck Sproull, Springville IN

Something serious is wrong in a society where a small minority of people are allowed to change definitions of words describing immoral acts to make them seem acceptable to moral people, and try to change laws to legalize illegal things,. Normal marriage in every culture has always been clearly defined and legal, and is God's will.

I believe LGBT'ers should learn correct meanings of Greek Bible words translated "love."

"Agapeo" is God's love, charity, unconditional love that unselfishly serves and cares for the well-being of others (16 attributes 1 Cor 13:4-8).

"Eros" is physical and emotional desires God intended to attract a man and woman together for normal marriage. Before or outside marriage, "eros" is erotic lusts that lead to immoral acts.

"Phileo" is friendly and affectionate (non-erotic) love. Two men or two women can live in the same house and be friendly (phileo), compassionate and caring (agapeo) towards each other, without being immoral (eros). There is no valid Constitutional requirement to legalize "gay unions."

By their resistance to moral people's opposition, gays and lesbians are showing us they are "normal-phobic," "truth-phobic," "God-phobic," and "salvation-phobic." Feminists who view marriage and raising children as "slavery" are "not fully developed" ("immature") and are "feminine-phobic," "marriage-phobic," "responsibility-phobic" and "parenthood-phobic."

Even worse, according to police reports, many rampage killers have confessed ties to pornographic and violent entertainment, and to homosexuality. They need emotional healing by God's love.



Listening to a liar

Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=674080

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess -- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years -- more specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days -- after which it sat on the president's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money -- and the power that goes with it -- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before -- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing -- and how he has been doing it.



Beck: American People Stood Up to Bring Down Van Jones

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/beck_jones_obama_boycott/2009/09/06/256993.html?s=al&promo_code=8834-1

Fox News host Glenn Beck, who led the charge calling for the resignation of President Barack Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones said Sunday that Jones is only the first of many radicals in the administration who should be facing questions.

“The American people stood up and demanded answers," Beck wrote in a statement. “Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future."

Jones resigned late Saturday following mounting criticism over his past statements and associations. The tipping point came when it was discovered that he signed a petition in 2004 supporting the "9/11 truther" movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been complicit in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

“Much of the credit for Jones resigning should go to Fox's Glenn Beck, who as HuffPo's Ryan Grim notes, has his "first scalp,” Politico reported Sunday.

Beck’s victory was being lauded by conservative columnists and grudgingly acknowledged by liberals across the country Sunday.

“Face it, Glenn Beck won a big victory for conservative America with the resignation of Van Jones,” wrote Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist.

“Beck kept up the pressure, and the mainstream media reported on it. As a result, Jones couldn't really muster any effective counter-attack. He had made mistakes, tried to apologize for them but was too late,” Abouhalkah added.

“As scary as this may sound… Glenn Beck might actually have more power than anybody else representing the Republican Party,” the Web site Political Lore.com wrote Sunday. “As the Republican Party seemingly has no leader in their ranks, at least one that can represent the voice of the people. Even though Glenn Beck is an independent, he represents more Republicans than the Republican party.”

“The resignation of Van Jones signals that Glenn Beck’s words do not fall on deaf ears. The view’s of Glenn Beck have been labeled “extreme” from just about everyone on the left. Van Jones views are arguably just as extreme, if not more so,” the article continued.

It was Beck who repeatedly called attention to a series of statements by Jones that suggested Republicans were incompetent and bad in their opposition to Obama’s liberal agenda. Among other things, Jones called GOP members racists and a**holes.

Jones was also the co-founder of ColorOfChange, the African-American activist group that attempted to lead a boycott against Beck. But the boycott had the opposite of the intended effect – many advertisers denied they were boycotting Beck and his grassroots support surged. In the traditionally weak, non-prime time slot at 5 p.m., Beck is now drawing more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined get in their prime time hours.

Even before the attempted boycott, Beck mentioned Jones twice on his radio show and twice on television. The boycott started after Beck called Obama "a racist" on Fox & Friends, but the comment occurred in the context of the racial controversy surrounding the arrest of Obama friend Henry Louis Gates by a white Cambridge police officer.

Beck mentioned Jones on 14 episodes, according to the Washington Independent's Dave Weigel, while also railing against him on "The O'Reilly Factor."

Beck also succeeded in keeping the national debate focused on the far left tendencies embodied in many of Obama’s policies and nominees, Politico pointed out. Now Obama is going into a key health reform speech before Congress on Wednesday with the taint of the Van Jones scandal marring his agenda.

“Between Cambridge cops; whether administration officials are or are not for the public option; right wing mobbing at town halls; and the back to school welcome contretemps, the White House has been forced to play defense and loose-ball control over [the summer],” former Clinton White House aide Chris Lehane told Politico. He noted that a “very important week” could have been consumed by “ a discussion related to an obscure staffer who no one has ever really heard of.”

But even before his resignation, critics said the controversy surrounding Jones was indicative of the fundamental problem with the administration's reliance on such advisers.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the first lawmaker to call for Jones' resignation, told Fox News that in light of the controversy Obama should suspend the appointment of additional "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as determine the constitutionality of such appointments.

Now that Jones is out of the way, Republicans are turning their fire on czars in general.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, called the czars "an affront to the Constitution" since they are not approved by Congress.

"I don't think (Jones is) the issue. I think the czars are the issue," Alexander, R-Tenn., said on "FOX News Sunday." "We have about two dozen so-called czars -- the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House."

Republican strategist Ed Rollins said the administration needs to focus on bringing people on board who are competent and not controversial.

"(Jones) got out of there, but the more fundamental thing is there are 31 czars in that White House," he said.



Why Van Jones wasn't properly vetted

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/why_van_jones_wasnt_properly_v.html

James Simpson

A lot of finger pointing has been going on since Van Jones' radical ideology was exposed. Some people ask how the Secret Service did not properly screen him in advance of his appointment. One might well ask why they give access to anyone in the Obama administration, including Obama himself.

But this betrays a misunderstanding of the Secret Service's role. Federal law enforcement agencies are given specific tasks based on their enabling legislation. As far as national security is concerned, it is the Secret Service's job to protect the President. Period. This was a task added to their original mandate, which was, and remains, to investigate counterfeiting and other financial crimes.

It is actually the FBI who is supposed to clear these high level people, and since 1992, when Bill Clinton obliterated that firewall, circumventing the vetting process with a procession of blatant security risk appointments, many of whom demonstrated their unfitness by subsequently violating U.S. laws, (like John Huang, for instance, very likely a communist Chinese agent from the get-go) the FBI has been essentially toothless. Remember the book "Unlimited Access" by FBI agent Gary Aldrich?

For most non-appointment, Executive Office bureaucrats (as I was, formerly), it is -- or at least was -- usually the Office of Personnel Management that conducts the investigations. These investigations were, and to my knowledge remain, pretty thorough.

Unless there has been some post 9-11 dramatic change of which I am unaware, the Secret Service only vets appointments. But they do check your SSN against all criminal databases and will deny access if they find something negative. They also investigate individuals who make threatening remarks about the President, especially if the President will be traveling to the area where the threat was issued.

The Secret Service's job is to protect their master, and while they very likely notice that this President surrounds himself with blatant security risks, it is not their job to protect the country from communists, traitors, terrorists or anyone else the President appoints -- unless it threatens him. They wouldn't touch an Obama appointment, no matter how odious. It's above their pay grade. That extends to all of Obama's cronies.

They are also acutely aware of how their reactions play in Congress. They know the game and play it well.

Their usual tactic is to remind everyone, in a not-so-subtle unionesque "non-threatening" manner that if they don't get all the resources they need, they may not be able to, er..., "adequately" protect the President. They say this in budget hearings. I have heard them. And while they have a valid point, one really gets the feeling this is a pro-forma remark, intended to rationalize budgeting for everything up to and including the kitchen sink.

As an afterthought, I once attended a meeting where Secret Service agents bragged to us that they actually helped in thawing relations with the Soviets that led to the end of the Cold War. "How?" I queried. "By sharing with their KGB counterparts their methods for protecting our President," they responded. Stunned into silence, I saw no point in observing that the ruthlessly efficient KGB, sword and shield of our sworn enemy for a century, had never lost a single protectee in their history, unless of course they had dispatched him themselves.

So if you are wondering how this guy got past our internal security firewalls, stop wondering. There are no firewalls. If there were, few if any, of Obama's appointees could gain access to the White House at any time, let alone to work there every day. As with most of these issues, we can primarily blame the national-security-risk Democrat Party (who Ann Coulter aptly calls the (Treason Party") in Washington and to a lesser extent, the pusillanimous Republicans who have let them systematically undermine our national security for the past 40 plus years.

And the Democrats want us to let Washington bureaucrats make life-or-death decisions regarding our healthcare? I would sooner volunteer to be shot by firing squad.



Recession Proof Industry

Joseph Ashby

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/recession_proof_industry.html

Stable employment is increasingly hard to find these days. But there is one industry that, despite a sharp decrease in revenue, is on a hiring binge. This from bizjournals.com:

Federal agencies will add more than 270,000 employees during the next three years, according to a report from the Partnership for Public Service.

The total projected hiring for “mission-critical jobs” is expected to jump more than 40 percent during fiscal 2010 to 2012 from the previous three years.

I’m always curious to know what federal bureaucrats consider “mission critical” (their own jobs top the list I suppose). The Cash for Clunkers program provides a clue. The program forced the Transportation Department to triple the staffers designated for paperwork. So while some of the more than quarter million new government employees will work in Homeland Security or the CIA, a huge portion of the new hires will merely add to the world’s largest army of paper pushers.

As all of private America tightens its belt to make it through difficult times, the federal government will roll on, merrily oblivious to the world around it.

Oh, and did I mention federal employees average double the wage of private workers?



White House to fly Red Chinese flag

People's Republic marking anniversary at White House

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108907

The administration of President Barack Obama, whose official blogger while Obama was a candidate came under attack for hanging a Communist Party flag in his Harvard apartment, apparently has given permission to raise the emblem of Communist China over the south lawn of the White House.

The plan, reported by several English-language Chinese media outlets, has raised concern among those who are working to guard the United States from outside influences that could be threats.

According to the Global Times English-language edition, the national flag of the communist People's Republic of China on Sept. 20 will be raised for the first time on the White House's south lawn – a secured area seldom available for public events – in recognition of the Chinese anniversary.

"The ceremony has gotten official approval," Xiao Shuigen, secretary of the Union of Chinese American Professional Organizations, told the Times.

"It was always my dream to raise a Chinese flag in the center of Washington, D.C.," Chen Ronghua, chief of the U.S.-Fujian Association, told the newspaper. "This year, my motherland's 60th birthday, is the perfect time for it."

According to China Daily, Chinese associations in the United States applied to have a ceremony.

Such emblems were an issue during Obama's presidential campaign, when a Houston Fox TV affiliate captured images of a volunteer in an Obama campaign office working in front of a flag featuring the image of Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.

At that time, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling the flag "inappropriate" and noting that the office where it was displayed was funded by "volunteers" and was not the official campaign headquarters.

However, it was Sam Graham-Felsen, a journalist-on-leave from The Nation, who joined Obama for America in 2007 and worked as the official blogger. He, according to a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson, adorned one corner of his shared student apartment with "a Communist Party flag ... bought on their trip to Russia the summer after sophomore year."

The proposed event at the White House was condemned on the forums page on Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's website.

"People could understand if there was a Chinese visitor at the White House and the Red flag was placed on the stage behind the speakers, but to hoist the commie pinko flag in 'honor' of the founding of the People's Republic of China is absurd," the forum participant said. "This only goes to prove the Obama administration is out-of-touch with the American people."

William Gheen, chief of Americans for Legal Immigration, the pre-eminent organization battling against illegal immigration, said it's the message that is sent to the world that will be significant.

"Our concern is that sovereign wealth funds, like the Chinese, now control the executive branch more than the American people," he said. "China is not our friend. China is our enemy. Our enemy is coming and raising their own flag in a type of proclamation.

"I expect the Chinese media will make a big thing of it," he said, saying something like, "'Look how strong and powerful China is, raising our flag on the White House.'"

He said it conveys the same message as if Old Glory would be raised on the property of the Kremlin.

Gheen said the issue becomes clear "why the new water stations at illegal alien crossings into the United States have instructions in English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese."

At the Red County blog, the author said, "Celebrating Americans of Chinese descent is one thing. Celebrating Communism is another. Now our president will hoist the Communist flag over the White House. How fitting and in sync with his political belief system."

A spokesman for the American Legion told WND that if the proper protocols are followed, there should be no issue with the actual display of a Chinese flag, especially since diplomatic visits routinely include the display of foreign flags.

But those with obviously U.S. leanings on the Global Times forum page were outraged.

"Another public short coming and failure by the Obama administration."

"UNBELIEVABLE!"

"It can now be official – leave the flag there."

"So let me get this straight – the Chinese are going to celebrate the founding of their country on the south lawn of the White House! Did we celebrate the 4th of July in Beijing in front of their Leader's House? What other proof do you need that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate."

"Oh Crap, Have the Chinese foreclosed on us already?



Obama Should Release His Transcripts

George Joyce

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/obama_should_release_his_trans.html

In a nationally televised educational address next Tuesday Barack Obama is scheduled to, according to the Department of Education, “challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.”

Concerns by many Americans that Mr. Obama’s televised address to schoolchildren will simply represent a forum for socialist indoctrination are wildly “overwrought” according to a Wall Street Journal editorial today:

“America's children are not so vulnerable that we need to slap an NC-17 rating on Presidential speeches. Given how many minority children struggle in school, a pep talk from the first African-American President could even do some good.”

While the WSJ editors criticized some of the Education Department’s post speech lesson plans they also condemned those “columnists who spy a conspiracy theory behind every Democrat” for “spreading alarm.”

Could a pep talk from the first African-American President “do some good” for minority students as the WSJ editors argue? Back in September of last year Steve Gilbert of Sweetness and Light pondered over our first African-American president’s prior academic performance:

“By his own admission, Obama spent his final two years in high school skipping classes, playing basketball, doing cocaine and getting drunk.”

After high school, Gilbert notes the following about Obama:

“Similarly, his admission to Harvard Law School is highly questionable. Where are his LSAT scores? And how does one graduate from Columbia without honors and yet get accepted at Harvard Law? Lastly, his ascendency to the Presidency of the Harvard Law school would appear to have also been a case of blatant affirmative action, since the student Obama had only written one legal paper — and that was quite short and remarkably undistinguished. So where are his grade transcripts?”

If Confucius were to describe a democracy, he’d probably say that the people are the “parents” and the rulers are the “children.” Children are normally required by their parents to be open and transparent about their grades at school. Barack Obama has sealed off his transcripts from the people.

Is it possible for the first African-American president to inspire minority schoolchildren about education when he continues to hide the record of his academic performance?

Many of us had to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for our learning because our gender and skin color actively worked against us on college admissions panels. There were others however who could get drunk, do cocaine, skip class and still make it to the Ivy League.

Lao Tzu once said that “you gain by losing, lose by gaining.” Now I think I know what he means.



Critics march against Chavez across Latin America

By texan2driver

Sadly, there is no opportunity for a peaceful protest against Chavez in his own country of Venezuela. If you speak out against him, you wake up dead. Once a dictator like Chavez seizes total power as he has done, there are only two ways to get rid of him: (1) wait until he dies, or (2) overthrow him. Either way is bloody. If you wait until he dies, then you watch untold numbers of your own countrymen die at his hand with no opposition. If you overthrow him, at least the innocent people will die with some dignity and for a purpose, leaving a better, more free country behind.

It should make all Americans nervous when Obama cozies up to dictators like Chavez and Ahmadinijad (pronounced I’m-in-a-jihad). It should sicken you when he cuts off aid to a democratic country following their constitution in order to support someone who attempted to short circuit that constitution to install himself as a dictator. Do not be surprised if Obama and his hoard cook up some phony crisis and attempt to declare some sort of national emergency to give “temporarily” give him more power to “solve” the crisis. Don’t believe for a second that the power grab will be temporary, or that he will in any way solve the problem.

Critics march against Chavez across Latin America

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_anti_chavez_protests/print

By SUSANA LONDONO, Associated Press Writer Susana Londono, Associated Press Writer

BOGOTA – Thousands of opponents of Hugo Chavez marched against the Venezuelan president across Latin America on Friday, accusing him of everything from authoritarianism to international meddling.

The protests, coordinated through Twitter and Facebook, drew more than 5,000 people in Bogota, and thousands more in the capitals of Venezuela and Honduras. Smaller demonstrations were held in other Latin American capitals, as well as New York and Madrid.

The Honduras march was led by Roberto Micheletti, who became president when Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a June coup.

“Any politician who tries to stay in power by hitching up with a dictator like Hugo Chavez, he won’t achieve it,” Micheletti said.. “We’ll stop him.”

Chavez, who was traveling in Syria, ridiculed the protests, likening Micheletti to a gorilla and saying: “Those who want to march, march with ‘Goriletti,’ the dictators, the extreme right.”

Chavez supporters held smaller counter-demonstrations, including a Caracas rally that drew nearly 200 people. Police in Quito, Ecuador, intervened to keep pro- and anti-Chavez groups from clashing.

Turnout at the anti-Chavez rallies was far from massive in many cities. A dozen people gathered in Sao Paulo, while about 200 turned out in New York, Madrid and Miami. Protests also were held in the capitals of Argentina, Ecuador, Chile, Panama and Bolivia.

Protest organizer Marcela Garzon in Colombia said she didn’t care about the numbers.

“The quantity doesn’t interest us, but rather the quality,” she said.

Associated Press writers Fabiola Sanchez in Caracas, Venezuela, Jeanneth Valdivieso in Quito, Ecuador, and Freddy Cuevas in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, contributed to this report.



THIS IS INTERESTING........ PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES...

Click on the year you were born and read the news for that year.

1900_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1900.html)
1901_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1901.html)
1902_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1902.html)
1903_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1903.html)
1904_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1904.html)
1905_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1905.html)
1906_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1906.html)
1907_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1907.html
1908_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1908.html)
1909_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1909.html)
1910_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1910.html)
1911_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1911.html)
1912_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1912.html)
1913_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1913.html)
1914_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1914.html)
1915_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1915.html)
1916_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1916.html)
1917_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1917.html)
1918_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1918.html)
1919_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1919.html)
1920_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1920.html)
1921_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1921.html)
1922_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1922.html)
1923_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1923.html)
1924_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1924.html)
1925_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1925.html)
1926_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1926.html)
1927_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1927.html)
1928_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1928.html)
1929_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1929.html)
1930_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1930.html)
1931_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1931.html)
1932_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1932.html)
1933_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1933.html)
1934_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1934.html)
1935_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1935.html)
1936_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1936.html)
1937_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1937.html)
1938_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1938.html)
1939_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1939.html)
1940_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1940.html)
1941_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1941.html)
1942_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1942.html)
1943_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1943.html)
1944_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1944.html)
1945_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1945.html)
1946_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1946.html)
1947_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1947.html)
1948_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1948.html)
1949_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1949.html)
1950_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1950.html)
1951_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1951.html)
1952_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1952.html)
1953_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1953.html)
1954_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1954.html)
1955_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1955.html)
1956_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1956.html)
1957_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1957.html)
1958_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1958.html)
1959_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1959.html)
1960_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1960.html)
1961_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1961.html)
1962_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1962.html)
1963_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1963.html)
1964_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1964.html)
1965_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1965.html)
1966_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1966.html)
1967_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1967.html)
1968_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1968.html)
1969_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1969.html)
1970_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1970.html)
1971_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1971.html)
1972_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1972.html)
1973_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1973.html)
1974_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1974.html)
1975_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1975.html)
1976_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1976.html)
1977_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1977.html)
1978_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1978.html)
1979_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1979.html)
1980_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1980.html)
1981_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1981.html)
1982_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1982.html)
1983_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1983.html)
1984_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1984.html)
1985_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1985.html)
1986_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1986.html)
1987_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1987.html)
1988_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1988.html)
1989_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1989.html)
1990_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1990.html)
1991_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1991.html)
1992_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1992.html)
1993_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1993.html)
1994_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1994.html)
1995_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1995.html)
1996_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1996.html)
1997_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1997.html)
1998_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1998.html)
1999_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/1999.html)
2000_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2000.html)
2001_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2001.html)
2002_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2002.html)
2003_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2003.html)
2004_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2004.html)
2005_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2005.html)
2006_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2006.html



"The e-mail Bag"

In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.



I am a nutritional overachiever.



ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?



ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.