ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090915

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Comments"

We Dont Get Fooled Again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JGGKmtMPkE



"Daily Motivations"

Go through your bookshelves and pull out books that you will never read again. Donate these to your local library, school, foster home, or children's organization. Take action today. You matter. -- Every Monday Matters



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"Such knowledge is higher than the heavens." (Job 11:8)

If God did not know Himself completely, then His knowledge of everything else would be incomplete as well. We could not trust Him with our problems.

Let us take this a step further. If God did not know Himself perfectly, then He would be ignorant of His own ability; He would not know how far His power extends. That would mean He could not govern everything, for He would not know how to exercise His power. Let me give some examples of the importance of God's knowledge of Himself.

As humans, we do not know ourselves, let alone what is going on in the heart of another person. That is why many of our laws when put into practice work against what they were intended to do. For example, malpractice laws intended to help patients injured during a medical procedure can also be used by a dishonest person to cheat the system out of millions of dollars. In a similar way, if God did not fully know His own holiness, He could not discern the difference between evil and good. Consequently, He could not prescribe laws or execute justice, for He would be limited in His knowledge of a person's heart attitudes. But He does understand His holiness, so He is the perfect judge.

In sports, we sometimes say about a rookie who makes it to the major leagues, "He doesn't know his own strength." Therefore, he plays well below his capabilities. We can never say that about God. No one but God is capable of truly understanding His divine magnificence and His many attributes.

Jesus tells us, "No one really knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him" (Matthew 11:27). What we know about God is possible only because He has revealed Himself through creation, the Bible, and Jesus Christ.



"The Patriot Post"

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800

"To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." -- George Washington



UPRIGHT

"Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about 'upholding the law' but they are doing no such thing. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law. There was a time when everybody understood this. German soldiers who put on American military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up against a wall and shot -- and nobody wrung their hands over it. Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done. The executions were filmed and the film has been shown on the History Channel." -- economist Thomas Sowell

"President Obama has previously told us that questions about life were 'above his pay grade.' He has now pivoted to claim that his health care reform is a matter of life and death. If he is now going to invoke religious authority, his opponents are entitled to recall not only that Barack Obama has a perfect pro-abortion voting record, but also that just a few years ago he spearheaded opposition to legislation that would have simply required that an infant who accidentally survived an abortion be given medical attention." -- columnist Mona Charen



INSIGHT

"He is the richest man in the esteem of the world who has gotten most. He is the richest man in the esteem of heaven who has given most." -- English preacher Frederick Brotherton Meyer (1847-1929)

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790)

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- British novelist C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

"The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles." -- Russian novelist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)

"You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument." -- English author Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)



DEZINFORMATSIA

Natterings from a vacuous drone: "Opponents of Obama's 'public plan option' whine about government intervention in the private sector, though they were conspicuously silent when taxpayers had to bail out Wall Street. Health insurance companies and other critics are pouring millions into defeating the proposed legislation. They are disseminating falsehoods and using fear tactics to scare constituents. Lawmakers -- our elected public servants -- have a moral duty to help the 47 million Americans who have no insurance." -- White House press corps member Helen Thomas (We have opposed big government all along.)



THE DEMO-GOGUES

The essence of ObamaCare: "We have a problem in America and it's called the private insurance industry." -- Sen. Harry Reid (Commie-NV)

Trouble in paradise: "[Blue Dog Democrats] just want to cause trouble. They're for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process." -- Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA)



"Chuck Sproull"

True History vs. Misquotes

By Chuck Sproull, Springville IN 9/11/2009

Recently I read by Karl Marx quote, “Catch a man a fish, and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”

The more I thought about that quote, the more ignorant, selfish and stupid it seemed. How could you “ruin a wonderful business opportunity” by teaching someone to catch his own fish?

A wise businessman who is concerned about his customers’ satisfaction would see the opportunity to expand his “business opportunity” by establishing a related business that includes selling fishing tackle and bait in addition to selling fish, and then conducting classes to train more people to be good fishermen so he could sell more tackle and make more profits, and do effective wealth distribution without taxation or Government intervention.

Then I did a search on “quotes, Karl Marx” and found that he had dishonestly misquoted a Lao Tzu quote, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

I hate that kind of dishonesty Karl Marx displayed in his misquote and his inappropriate application of it to socialism. That is the same kind of dishonest illogical reasoning going on in the hearts of present day socialists and communists. They even show how confused they are by outlawing Bible study in public schools, which can save believers from evil influences, and then dishonestly misquoting the Bible to promote their socialist and evil agenda.

Another Karl Marx quote. “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Hello, can anyone see what’s wrong here? It was the communist experiments 400 years ago in Jamestown and Plymouth (“abolition of private property”) that failed. And it was limited government and freedom to own private property that lead to personal prosperity and better health, without Government run health care. This became the foundation of our Constitutional Republic and made America the greatest nation in the world.

I don’t think Karl Marx would have mad a good American, do you? Would he or the present day socialists have signed our Declaration of Independence, fought in the War of Independence, or signed our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

As John Adams pointed out, only moral, honest and unselfish people who are willing to work can live within limited government with the Ten Commandments to govern them. Socialists who need more laws and enforcement are “blind leaders of the blind.” (Matthew 15:14).

Another Lao Tzu quote, “Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained...”

This is similar to what Jesus taught His followers, not as a political party but as individuals. “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:45-46, Luke 6:35).Why? So they could represent the love of God and teach their enemies how to become friends. It works. I know from experience.

But Jesus as the Son of God went farther than any religious leader before or after Him. He suffered and died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended into heaven, that everyone might receive remission (forgiveness of past) sins and a new life of love and holiness that prepares us to live with Him in heaven.



"The Web"

1.5 MILLION at DC Tea Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDm9j2s39ww&NR=1



Media Downplayed 912 D.C. Crowd Size
By: David A. Patten

http://www.newsmax..com/insidecover/912_rally_media_crowd/2009/09/14/259829.html?s=al&promo_code=88A6-1

Leaders of Saturday's 912 Project rally in the Nation's Capital are dismissing estimates that the crowd numbered only "tens of thousands" as "intentional misrepresentations."

Crowd estimates of the event varied widely. ABC News reported that the crowd numbered 60,000 to 70,000. The Associated Press reported it was in the "tens of thousands," a figure echoed Monday morning on MSNBC. Both of these estimates are ridiculously low, according to rally organizers.

The highest attendance estimate came from the London Daily Mail. It reported "as many as" 1 million people attended. The Daily Mail reported that the crowd "shocked the White House." But if so, that was not reflected by the administration's official statements.

In fact, the administration's remarks before the event appeared to echo statements made prior to the July 4 Tea Party protests, suggesting the event wasn't even a blip on President Obama's radar.

"I don't know who the group is," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday, when asked for his reaction to the demonstration.

Bill Line, communications officer for the national capital region for the U.S. national park service, told Newsmax that no official estimate of the crowd's size had been issued.

"For any event national mall or in any of the various related parks adjacent to it, we do not give crowd estimates," Line said.

More than 20 different conservative grassroots organizations – including the 912 Project, FreedomWorks, Tea Party Patriots, and Grassfire.org – participated in the rally.

Demonstrators chanted "Enough! Enough!" Others waved signs with messages such as "Go Green, Recycle Congress," and "I'm Not Your ATM" and "Just Say No to Chicago-Style Politics."

Everett Wilkinson, a national leader for the Tea Party Patriots group, says the crowd size caught the park police by surprise – so much so they ordered the event to begin several hours earlier than planned to maintain crowd control.

"I showed up a little before 8:30 a.m. at Freedom Plaza, where we were staging for the event," Wilkinson tells Newsmax. "I was there about a half hour early and it was hard to get to the stage at that time. Around 9:20 or so, I was on stage and the park police came up and said, 'If it keeps growing at this rate we're going to have to ask you guys to start early.'

"About 20 minutes or so later they came up, a little before 10, and said, 'You need to start the march NOW!' It was about an hour and half or so before we had expected to begin. We had overwhelmed the area. From what I understand, we had a couple hundred thousand minimum at that time."

From Freedom Plaza the crowd marched down Pennsylvania Avenue for hours toward the Capitol.

Videos on YouTube show an overflow crowd on the Mall stretching from the Capitol back toward the Washington Monument.

A USAToday report during the Inauguration demonstrated that such an area could easily contain over one million persons, but accurately estimating the size of any crowd can be problematic. That's because the number of attendees depends on crowd density. Estimates of density often require expert analysis of aerial photographs.

Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests the actual attendance may have been far larger than reported by several media outlets.

"Looking out from the stage," Wilkinson says, "people appeared to be lined up all the way to the Washington Monument. I could tell the crowd kept growing until at least two or three o'clock…. It was shoulder-to-shoulder people, and there was nowhere to move…"

Wilkinson wouldn't rule out the possibility that up to 2 million attended the rally. As for media reports that the number was far less, Wilkinson says: "I think it's intentional misrepresentation. The most novice and naked eye could see the video in the shots taken that there were hundreds of thousands, millions of people there.

"When you have the park police and the D.C. police literally telling us to march two hours before hand, from an area that holds a couple hundred thousand people, saying, 'There's no room, you need to march NOW' … we had tens of thousands probably by 9:30. It was millions by 1 o'clock.

"We literally shut down the highways, the red line rail station had to change things around," he adds. "Looking at the videos posted on YouTube, you can tell it was millions. We completed surrounded the Capitol."

The mainstream media also overlooked the many regional rallies held throughout the country on Saturday to show support for the D.C. event.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that over 1,500 people gathered Saturday for a rally on the lawn of the Utah state capitol. Similarly, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that over 1,000 people braved heavy rain to march in that city's downtown area, chanting "You lie!" and "No more czars!"



Pro-Life Congressmen and Planned Parenthood Agree: Health Care Bill Funds Abortion

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53857

Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday about how the House health care bill now under consideration will allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) - In his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, President Barack Obama said the health care plan he is pushing will not provide federal money for abortions. But pro-life congressmen and Planned Parenthood agree that abortion would be covered under the plan under an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D.-Calif.).

“One more misunderstanding I want to clear up,” Obama said Wednesday night. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

Pro-life members of Congress and Stop the Abortion Mandate, a coalition of pro-life groups, responded to Obama’s remarks at a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa..) co-sponsored an amendment with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would prohibited federal funding of abortion in the health care plan, but it was voted down by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Pitts said the bill will use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

He also said an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) that was approved by the committee will actually mandate federal payment for elective abortions.

Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, holds a symbolic voided check for millions of dollars payable to abortion clinics. Other groups taking part in the Sept. 10, 2009 "Void the Abortion Mandate" campaign include Democrats for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List.

“There has been some recent confusion surrounding the inclusion of abortion coverage in HR 3200, but the issue is really quite clear,” Pitts said at the press conference. “The Capps Amendment, which some have argued is neutral on abortion, explicitly authorizes the federal government to directly fund elective abortions using federal funds drawn on a federal treasury account.

“Some have argued that HR 3200 will maintain the status quo on the issue of abortion,” Pitts said. “Let me be clear. This bill, in all of its forms, will radically expand federal policy with respect to abortion.”

“This legislation will not only expand the government funding, it will also provide additional venues,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said at the press conference. “The language is very clear about having a private insurance provider--government subsidized through these affordability credits--that will provide abortions.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Campaign, said that any money collected by the government are federal funds, including those that would be collected for government health care plans.

“The reality is that the Obama-backed House bill would explicitly authorize the federal government insurance plan to pay for elective abortions and would explicitly authorize subsidies for private abortion insurance--and all with federal dollars, which are the only kind of dollars the federal government can spend,” Johnson said.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said that killing unborn children by abortion "can never be construed as health care reform." (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Johnson’s organization recently issued a memorandum on abortion and health care reform, including describing what it calls the “Hyde Amendment Myth.” The Henry Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through Medicaid, except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mothers. But the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the health-care bill.

“In reality, the Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide law--it applies only to funds appropriated through the annual appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services,” says the memorandum.

Pro-life advocates aren’t alone in their conclusion that the House bill will allow federally funded abortions.

The non-partisan Web site, Factcheck.org agreed in its own analysis of the bill.

“Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans,” the analysis said.

Planned Parenthood, which was assured by Obama during his presidential campaign that his health plan “will provide essential services, including reproductive services,” has expressed its support for the House bill.

In a Sept. 3 article on the “Daily Kos” Web site, Planned Parenthood Vice President Laurie Rubiner explained that the Capps amendment mandates that at least one insurance plan offering services to federally subsidized insurance purchasers must cover abortion. Rubiner described this as a compromise with what she called “anti-choice” groups. But the fact of the matter is that the amendment—even as described by Rubiner—mandates that people buying health insurance with federal dollars be able to buy abortion coverage.

“In late August, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) offered an amendment as a straightforward response to concerns raised by anti-choice groups. While no other medical procedure is singled out for exclusion in any of the bills, in order to move reform forward, anti-choice organizations needed an assurance that the medical commission cannot guarantee abortion coverage in every Exchange plan,” wrote Rubiner. “That’s why we did not oppose the Capps amendment that provides them with that assurance. It explicitly states that abortion will neither be mandated nor prohibited. It also mandates that every region will have at least one insurance plan that offers abortion coverage and one that does not, so people have a choice.”

Pitts said he plans to ask the House Rules Committee to allow him to re-introduce the Stupak-Pitts amendment on the House floor when the bill comes up there. The amendment would essentially apply the provisions of the Hyde Amendment to the health-care bill.

“All of the bills that have passed out of committee have failed to address abortion funding concerns,” Pitts said. “And if a bill is brought before the House that expands public funding for abortion, Bart and I will offer an amendment to the Rules Committee to maintain the current policy of prohibiting public funds flowing to abortion or plans that cover abortion.

“This is not about the legality or the illegality of abortion,” Pitts said. “It is about keeping the government out of the business of promoting abortion as health care.”

“Killing human babies by abortion is not health care,” Smith said. “Publicly funding and facilitating abortion can in no way be construed as health care reform.”



Obama’s Speech Prompts Ten Questions from Republicans

By House Republican Conference

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53889

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Va., left, and House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, listen to President Barack Obama’s speech on healthcare to a joint session of Congress, on Wednesday, Sept., 9, 2009, on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CNSNews.com) – House Republicans on Thursday issued ten “common-sense” questions arising from President Barack Obama’s Wednesday-night speech plugging health care reform.

The questions – and the words that prompted them – appear here verbatim:

President Barack Obama: “Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to the breaking point.”
Common Sense Question: If we are at the “breaking point,” then why doesn’t your government-run insurance plan start until 2013?

President Barack Obama: “There are now 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”
Common Sense Question: On August 20, you said 46 million Americans were uninsured. What happened to 16 million Americans?

President Barack Obama: “And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”
Common Sense Question: Does that mean 15 million Americans will lose their health care before your government plan starts in 2013?

President Barack Obama: “We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”
Common Sense Question: Then why do people travel from around the world to receive health care in the United States?

President Barack Obama: “Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.”
Common Sense Question: Didn’t the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office say that the health care plan you have endorsed will add $239 billion to our annual deficits over the next ten years?

President Barack Obama: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.”
Common Sense Question: If we can pay for “most” of health care reform by controlling waste and inefficiency, then why does a $900 billion health care plan include $820 billion in tax increases?

President Barack Obama: “…no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.”
Common Sense Question: Do you object to House Democrats defeating an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup that would have explicitly prohibited federal funding of abortion under a government-run health care plan?

President Barack Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.”
Common Sense Question: Do you oppose the House Democrat health care plan, H.R. 3200, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said will add $239 billion to our annual deficits over the next ten years and “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” thereafter? If so, which Democrat plan are you going to support?

President Barack Obama: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan…the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over the next 10 years…”
Common Sense Question: If there is so much “waste and inefficiency” in Medicare and Medicaid – two government-run health care plans – then won’t further government involvement in health care lead to further “waste and inefficiency”?

President Barack Obama: “And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen.”
Common Sense Question: Will you agree to meet with House Republican leaders to discuss health care reform, as they requested almost four months ago?



Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'

Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109529
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.

A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return.

A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.

This is not a description of Cuba, communist China or the old USSR. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny.

In 2004, Sunstein penned a book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

Among his mandates are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give
him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."



Harvard: Holocaust denial ad was 'a mix-up'


By AP AND JPOST.COM STAFF

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1251804545277

Talkbacks for this article: 13

The head of Harvard University's student newspaper is blaming an ad that questioned the Holocaust on "a miscommunication."

Harvard Crimson president Maxwell Child said in a letter to readers Wednesday that his staff initially rejected the ad.

But Child said the decision "fell through the cracks" in the three weeks between the ad's submission and its publication Tuesday.

Child called the error "a logistical failure and not a philosophical one."

Students e-mailed to complain, and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors helped write a letter saying they were "deeply hurt."

The ad came from longtime Holocaust denier Bradley Smith and questions the Nazis' use of gas chambers. Smith's ads have appeared since the late 1980s in campus newspapers nationwide.

Smith said he was not surprised by the reaction, CNN said, because "it's taboo, and has been taboo from the beginning. When you break a culture-wide taboo, supported in theory and practice by the state, the university and the press, you create a fuss."

Smith said he expected the paper to "do the right thing about the money," and refund him for the ad.

Harvard Hillel president and director Bernie Steinberg said the advertisement was "obviously a shock to see," according to the television channel.

He hailed the Jewish campus organization's students for their response, saying the incident should be seen as an example of "extraordinary mature student leadership in response to an unfortunate situation."

Steinberg also praised The Crimson for its response following the numerous complaints.

Meanwhile, Harvard Hillel's student president, Rebecca Gillette, lamented that the episode showed the prevalence of Holocaust denial.

"The fact that organizations and individuals like that publicized in this advertisement still exist today is frightening and disturbing, but unfortunately it seems that Holocaust denial will persist for years to come," she said in a letter.

CNN quoted Robert Trestan, civil rights counsel for the Anti-Defamation League of New England, as saying that Smith and his organization had placed ads in approximately 15 US college papers so far this year, and that he found it shocking that such an advertisement would fall through the cracks.

"Would an ad that questions whether the world was flat or that slavery never happened in America have fallen through the cracks?" he asked.



Muslims on the Mall

Very important reading! A "must read"! How can we believe President Obama is a Christian? Obama tones down National Day of Prayer observance http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html,but allows a national prayer gathering on September 25, 2009 of Muslims??? Below is a statement I copy and I believe, "Islam is not a religion. It is a violent political ideology of which religion is only one component and is based on its own set of laws that has no tolerance for non muslims." WAKE UP AMERICA!!! Before it is too late. - oyh



JUST LAW AND RELIGION

By Michael Kessler

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/09/the_national_mall_is_for_all.html

Critics of a New Jersey mosque's plans to hold a prayer event on the National Mall are wrong in their views of religious liberty.

The Star-Ledger reported last week that a mosque in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Dar-ul-Islam, will spearhead a national prayer gathering for September 25 in Washington, D.C., "that organizers are billing as the first event of its kind--organized prayer for tens of thousands of Muslims outside the U.S. Capitol building."

The paper quoted Hassen Abdellah, president of Dar-ul-Islam and an event organizer: "Most of the time, when Muslims go to Washington, D.C., they go there to protest some type of event...This is not a protest. Never has the Islamic community prayed on Capitol Hill for the soul of America. We're Americans. We need to change the face of Islam so people don't feel every Muslim believes America is 'the great Satan,' because we love America."

The Star-Ledger reports that "A permit from the Capitol Hill police, granted July 28, allows access to the area by the West Front of the Capitol building from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sept. 25, but the main gathering will occur at 1 p.m., for the Friday prayer service. Abdellah said he expects 50,000 people to attend, from mosques around the country, though non-Muslims are welcome, too."

Abdellah stated the idea germinated after President Obama's inaugural speech, and was reinforced by this summer's Cairo address: "For the first time in my lifetime," Abdellah said, "I heard someone of his stature speaking about Islam and Muslims not in an adversarial sense, but in the sense of being welcome and acknowledging we are integral citizens in the society -- that we're gainfully employed, we're educated."

This sounds like a wonderful idea in our scarred and fraught world--religious people coming to the nation's capital in a spirit of unity, praying for their well-being and for that of the country and the world. What's not to support about this?

Well, when Charisma magazine reported about the plans, not everyone claimed excitement for a large group of Muslims appearing together in such a prominent place: "Some Christians also are mobilizing to pray on that day. An e-mail circulating virally calls for Christians to oppose what they see as Islam's growing influence on the U.S. through prayer. 'If ever we needed to be crying out for mercy for America, it is now,' the e-mail reads. 'We must stand strong and speak Truth wherever we are and at every given opportunity. ... May there be multitudes come in to the kingdom of God while there is yet time.'"

Indeed, one Nigerian minister (yes, based in Africa! thanks for watching out for America's well-being?), Mosy Madugba, views the Muslim prayer gathering as "part of a spiritual battle for the soul of the nation. In an e-mail, the leader of Spiritual Life Outreach in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, called on Christians to fast from midnight Sept.25 until the Muslim prayer event ends at 7 p.m. "It is warfare time," he wrote. "Do not joke with this. If Christians fail to frustrate this game plan in the spirit, you will regret the outcome." Lovely that he's so concerned about America, but perhaps he's not speaking for Americans?

Yet others echoed this view, including Florida resident Karen Leach, who says "she plans to fast and pray on Sept. 25 because she sees the event as a subtle form of 'cultural jihad.'" The chilling, racist, and xenophobic comments are already multiplying on the web, as plans become more widely known. Just a few of the choicest that represent the common themes:

"Satan has to feel very satisfied over the direction of the United States in recent decades."

"Islam is not a religion. It is a violent political ideology of which religion is only one component and is based on its own set of laws that has no tolerance for non muslims."

"And Obama would not recognize one day of Prayer for Christians. That proves that he is definitely not an American." (Of course, this totally confuses a private group gathering as opposed to official state action!).

Sigh.

Legally, there is no news here--a group of citizens went through the proper channels to get the necessary permits to hold a gathering on land the National Park Service has set aside as a public forum. As such, it's open to everyone who agrees to abide by rules necessary to ensure the public safety. There can be no viewpoint discrimination in deciding between which groups gain access.

Theologically, it's astounding to me that some Christians would cast all of Islam--a member along with Christianity and Judaism in the so-called family of Abrahamic religions--as an inherent enemy. The rich legacy of scripture, theology, and philosophy shared between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, betrays that the God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are unquestionably one. The major doctrinal differences lay in the various conceptions of how God revealed God-self to the world. Fine--argue about the role and nature of Christ (as surely Christians have bickered among themselves about for centuries!), but if you call the God of the Muslim an evil, dark force, rest assured you, as a Christian, are slandering your own God.

But leave the law and theological disputation aside. Our American civic tradition strongly condemns this kind of intolerance.

No less an authority than George Washington can teach an important civics lesson about toleration and the basic right for the Muslim citizens to enjoy full, unquestioned access to public life. Washington would celebrate this prayerful presence of Muslims on the National Mall. I submit his letter "To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island," (now the Touro Synagogue) written in 1790, in which Washington declared both the unity of the Abrahamic descendants, but each religions' right to enjoy the abundance of the new nation's freedoms:

"May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."

There is no idea of Christian supremacy in Washington's words. Rather, in the new America, liberty is supreme: the United States has "given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship...For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

Washington's idea celebrates the tolerant, peaceful, and respectful living together with our Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, and "spiritual, not religious" fellow citizens. As we approach the date of the September rally, I hope there is cool reflection on Washington's words. We should remind any nasty critics to contemplate the peace that passes all understanding and display some humility toward others who find their way through this world from a different religious viewpoint and culture.

Even regardless of what kind of toleration we can muster, we must reiterate loudly the legal right that all citizens have to equally enjoy public access and full participation in civic life--and the National Mall--as religious peoples.

Dr. Michael Kessler is Assistant Director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University.



Bargaining with Thieves

by bmarinov

http://www.americanvision.org/worldviewforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1037

I remember Eastern Europe in 1989. I was there when the streets were flooded with people, when we watched the Berlin Wall being brought down, when the police blocked the streets and attacked us, trying to disperse the protests. One after another, Communist governments found it impossible to contain the wrath of their own people. We were on the streets, blocking parliaments and government buildings, demanding our liberty. All the Eastern European countries had constitutions, and those constitutions started with Article I: “The Communist party is the leading political force...”

We wanted just one thing: Repeal Article I. Destroy the political monopoly of the Communist party, destroy its power to take our life, liberty and property. (Not that we had much of any of these three left.) Nothing less than this.

The Communist governments didn’t want to give in. They knew our demands were morally right, so giving in would mean they had to admit the Communists had been morally wrong. So they had to find a way to blame us.

“These extremists,” declared the Communists, “refuse to come to an agreement. We want to have constructive dialog but they refuse. They wear swastikas and brown shirts. They are nothing less than fascists.”

We didn’t bargain with them. Article I was repealed everywhere,without “constructive dialog.” There is nothing “constructive” in bargaining about a criminal and immoral law.

I am here in America in 2009, 20 years later. I watch the Town Hall meetings all over the country. One after another Democratic candidates find it impossible to answer the questions of their own constituents. They have their Article I that says, “If the law is proposed by Obama or Pelosi, it must be passed without reading or discussions.”

The American people want just one thing: Repeal Article I. Destroy the political monopoly of those that want to steal our money, those who want to control our health, our life, our property and our future.

The Democrats don’t want to give in. They know our demands are morally right, and therefore giving in will mean they have to admit they have been morally wrong. So they try to find a way to blame us.

“These extremists,” Nancy Pelosi would declare, “refuse to negotiate. They refuse constructive dialog. They wear swastikas and brown shirts. They are nothing less than fascists.”

We shouldn’t bargain with them. There is nothing “constructive” in bargaining about a criminal and immoral law.

Eastern European Communists and American Democrats are like a thief that is caught with the stolen thing in his hand. He refuses to admit his guilt. He wants to have “constructive dialog.” “Let’s bargain,” he says. “Let’s come to a mutually acceptable decision. If you don’t bargain, you are a fascist.”

There should be no bargaining until the thief returns what he has stolen. Just like the Communists 20 years ago, Democrats are trying to negotiate about something that isn’t theirs: Our money, our health, our lives.

This is the time for today’s Americans to show that they are more courageous and tenacious than the peoples of Eastern Europe in 1989.



"The e-mail Bag"

After retiring, I went to the Social Security office to apply for Social Security. The woman behind the counter asked me for my driver's license to verify my age. I looked in my pockets and realized I had left my wallet at home. I told the woman that I was very sorry, but I would have to go home and come back later.

The woman said, 'Unbutton your shirt'. So I opened my shirt revealing my curly silver hair. She said, 'That silver hair on your chest is proof enough for me,' and she processed my Social Security application.

When I got home, I excitedly told my wife about my experience at the Social Security office.

She said, 'You should have dropped your pants. You might have gotten disability, too.'



My wife and I were sitting at a table at my school reunion, and I kept staring at a drunken lady swigging her drink as she sat alone at a nearby table..

My wife asked, 'Do you know her?'

'Yes,' I sighed, 'She's my old girlfriend. I understand she took to drinking right after we split up those many years ago, and I hear she hasn't been sober since.'

'My God!' says my wife, 'Who would think a person could go on celebrating that long?'



I took my wife to a restaurant. The waiter, for some reason, took my order first.

"I'll have the steak, medium rare, please."

He said, "Aren't you worried about the mad cow?"

"Nah, she can order for herself," I said.



A woman is standing nude, looking in the bedroom mirror. She is not happy with what she sees and says to her husband, 'I feel horrible; I look old, fat and ugly. I really need you to pay me a compliment..'

The husband replies, 'Your eyesight's damn near perfect.'