ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091006

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

Each spiritual journey begins with a step forward—the moment when you realize that there's more to life than you've been living. -- Vicky Thompson



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

I can never escape from your Spirit! I can never get away from Your presence! If I go up to heaven, You are there; if I go down to the place of the dead, You are there. If I ride the wings of the morning, if I dwell by the farthest oceans, even there Your hand will guide me, and Your strength will support me." (Psalm 139:7-10)

Elijah had seen God move differently on an earlier mountaintop. At Mount Carmel, God had sent fire from heaven in the judgment of false prophets from the Baal religion (1 Kings 18). But most of the time, as has been my experience, the voice of God is soft and subtle. Please do not miss His voice by assuming it must be loud and dramatic. Very often we come to God with rather dramatic questions: "Is this the person I should marry?" Or, "Is that the life vocation you desire me to choose?" How convenient it would be for us if God would simply write His answer in the clouds. How we long to hear an audible voice, or see a stroke of lightning that etches His directions upon a tree.

But God is not interested in simple convenience. He wants us to know Him as our friend and Lord. He desires that we know Him well enough to learn to hear His still, small voice, even when it is as gentle as a whisper. True friendship is never quick or convenient. We must work at it over a long period of time.

Perhaps God's message for you will become evident in a deep study of His Word. Perhaps you will hear it in the wise counsel of a friend. Perhaps it will emerge through long, searching times of prayer and fellowship with Him. He wants us to know Him well and to love Him deeply. The Holy Spirit helps us do that. For many years I have lived according to the verse, "It is God who works in you to will and act according to His good purpose." (Philippians 2:13, NIV)

Where is God when you need Him? He is with you, beside you, within you. Let us learn to listen for a lifetime. Then we can sing in praise, with David the psalmist, the theme Scripture above.YOUR VIEW OF GOD REALLY MATTERS...
Recount a time in your life where God may have seemed distant. What did you do? What have you learned since then and what will you do the next time it may happen?



"The Patriot Post"

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, 1775

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves." -- John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death." -- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, 1776



'Too Big to Fail?'

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." -- George Washington

"An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself... A murderer is less to fear." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

As reported two weeks ago in The Patriot Post (and practically nowhere else), Indiana Treasurer Richard Murdock filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the legality of the Obama-forced bankruptcy of Chrysler, LLC.

Murdock is petitioning the Court to rule on Barack Obama's blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, which explicitly authorizes Congress, and not the president, to determine bankruptcy laws. In particular, Murdock is challenging the president's unashamed indifference to more than 220 years of bankruptcy precedent, which puts senior, or secured, creditors ahead of junior, or unsecured, creditors during bankruptcy proceedings.

With regard to the latter, BO unilaterally declared a 55 percent ownership stake for the UAW, a junior creditor, and he donated a 20 percent ownership stake to non-creditor and non-investor Italian automobile maker Fiat, which was also given options for an additional 15 percent. (Fiat exchanged not even one penny for its ownership stake or options, and the jury is still out as to the politics behind that unsavory deal.)

Adding insult to injury, BO announced that he would bestow senior creditors only 29 cents on the dollar for their bond holdings. From the onset of this fiasco, the largest senior creditors, representing $6..6 billion, calculated Chrysler's value to be at least 90 cents on the dollar. Other private and public senior creditors, representing $300 million, along with private analysts, concurred. Even Chrysler itself argued that it was worth more than 29 cents per dollar.

But, when BO and his Treasury thugs held firm, everyone prepared to do battle in bankruptcy court. Then, one morning, the largest senior creditors withdrew their opposition. In an act of cowardice, California and Michigan public funds decided to play along with Obama's scheme, so as not to jeopardize potential federal bailout moneys.

Only Indiana Treasurer Richard Murdock, fiduciary of three relatively small Indiana public funds ($45 million total invested in Chrysler bonds), stood firm.

During the discovery phase, under threats and intimidation from the "tolerant" Left, Murdock documented how the largest senior creditors had changed position because Obama officials had assured them overnight, Chicago-style, that they were "too big to fail," and that their substantial losses as Chrysler bondholders would be recovered through other government programs.

While a stay to prevent the Obama-forced bankruptcy was eventually rejected by the full Supreme Court, no ruling was ever made based upon the legal merits of the case. Hence, the appeal.

Of course, this is not the only instance where BO (and George W. Bush before him) has, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, used the "too big to fail" ploy. Banking, investing, insurance and mutual funds are other economic sectors that have also been usurped over the last 12 months by Big Brother.

While each of these events, in and of itself, has been devastating to our liberty and our pursuit of happiness, they have been mere tactics in an end-game strategy -- that of engendering Democrats themselves as too big to fail.

Obama's disregard of the Constitution is also evident in his naming of some 30 so-called czars, policy coordinators who usurp even Democrat-controlled congressional constitutional authority, bypassing the budgetary responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the advice-and-consent responsibilities of the Senate.

With Leftist Democrats in control of the House and with a veto-proof majority in the Senate (and an occasionally traitorous Republican), Democrats are ramming through legislation unwanted by the American public (Card Check, Cap-and-Tax, government-run health care). In addition, they are stonewalling certain investigations and pursuing others so as to suit their immediate political needs.

More egregiously, Leftist Democrats are surreptitiously scheming to legalize 30 million illegal aliens and to force same-day voter registration across the country, thereby allowing them to convert these freshly minted "citizens" into millions of new Democrat votes.

Another dire consequence of this veto-proof Senate majority is that Democrats are packing our courts with "living Constitution" judges. Unlike Democrat hero Franklin D. Roosevelt's efforts to pack the Supreme Court directly, this modern Democrat tactic seeks to stock the appellate court level. After all, little attention is paid to appellate nominees, and appellate courts can be altered more stealthily than can the Supreme Court.

Significantly, packing the appellate level furnishes Democrats with a layer of insulation between their election-stealing shenanigans and the Supreme Court. If, for example, informed and patriotic voters were able to file suit over a rigged election (quite challenging and expensive, in and of itself), these "living documenters" could stymie or accelerate appeals, depending upon which rulings would support the desired outcome.

The fulcrum of this too-big-to-fail strategy is Obama's coercion of his own party members, especially those vulnerable in the 2010 elections. First, consider the frustration and outrage displayed during the August congressional recess. Then, consider Democrat incumbents' disdain and mockery of constituents who dared to challenge their Leftist agenda. Under "normal" circumstances, the prognosis for such an incumbent would be very dark. Alas, these are not normal days.

Be it by persuasion or coercion, every vulnerable Democrat is being forced to march in Leftist lock-step, to walk the plank on each and every piece of legislation, and, ultimately, to vote in favor of immigrant legalization and same-day voter registration to garner the ensuing millions of voters.

Couple these tactics and advantages with ACORN's illegal get-out-the-vote efforts, BO's hundreds of millions in campaign fund dollars, and the Democrat shakedown of industries and companies around the world, and the 2010 Democrat congressional candidates would appear to be positioned as "too big to fail."

Team Obama, however, lacks one major element in their nefarious conniving -- the truth. Indeed, it is their brazen lying, half-truths and obfuscations, which have awakened the sleeping giant of American Patriotism.

We are a generous and tolerant nation, the greatest in the history of mankind. We have freed other nations and peoples from tyrannies and oppressions, and we have done so at great cost of our blood and treasure. But, we have reached the limit with Obamanism, this nascent American Communism.

While The Patriot Post's motto, Veritas Vos Liberabit, takes its inspiration from John 8:32, "The truth shall set you free," as Ronald Reagan noted, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."

And, Edmund Burke once noted, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

George Washington urged, "We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times."

Are Obama and his Democrat minions too big to fail? I say, emphatically, NO! Indeed, they already are failures.

Still, there is much to be done to save our Republic. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, freedom is being hunted, reason is considered as rebellion and the slavery of fear makes men afraid to think. Fortunately, as Paine further observed, "[S]uch is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."

If we continue to shine the light of Truth, we may yet force these Leftist cockroaches to scurry for cover. Let us pray for Almighty God's guidance. Let us roll up our sleeves and extend to our posterity proof that we were worthy of the title "American."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US, with J. Adams Clymer



"Founders As Christians"

John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.



"Newt.org"

Dishonesty, Intimidation, Hypocrisy and Medicare Advantage

http://newt.org/EditNewt/NewtNewsandOpinionDB/tabid/102/ctl/ArticleView/mid/380/articleId/4555/Default.aspx

The editorial writers at the New York Times thought they were getting the White House’s back when they defended cuts to Medicare Advantage last week. In fact, they were validating the blatant dishonesty of administration and congressional officials pushing for the cuts.

In their editorial last Sunday, the Times writers revealed in stunning fashion the lies that have been used to convince increasingly skeptical seniors that their Medicare Advantage benefits won’t be sacrificed to pay for government-run health care.

Dishonesty: Cuts Won’t Affect Medicare Advantage Participants

In one breath, the Times claimed the effect of Medicare Advantage cuts will be “modest”:

“Although Republican rhetoric has triggered fears that Medicare Advantage enrollees might lose their coverage entirely if private plans drop out of the system, the real effect of the bill would likely be modest on average.”

Then, literally on the next line, the Times contradicts itself, and stumbles inadvertently on to the truth:

“The value of an enrollee’s added benefits would shrink by more than half from current levels but would not disappear; they would still be worth about $500 a year in 2019 (emphasis added).”

Intimidation: Free Speech Rights of Insurance Companies Denied

Medicare Advantage was created to do what the Center for Health Transformation (CHT) has long fought for: To give all seniors more private choices of higher quality health care. It currently provides almost 11 million Americans coverage through private insurance plans. Recent data shows that these seniors have better health outcomes than those in traditional Medicare.

Current legislation in Washington will gut the program. H.R. 3200 in the House will cut Medicare Advantage by $172 billion. The bill sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus in the Senate will cut the popular program by $123 billion.

If you’re just hearing about this now, here’s the reason: When Humana (with whom we’ve worked with in the past at CHT) tried to inform its Medicare Advantage members that Democratic health care reform could lower their benefits, the government ordered them to cease and desist and opened an investigation of the company.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) subsequently introduced legislation in the Senate Finance Committee to protect the 1st Amendment rights of private insurance companies to criticize health care reform proposals.

Democrats on the committee unanimously defeated the bill.

Hypocrisy: The AARP Sells Out Seniors

But while Humana was censored by the government from talking to its Medicare Advantage enrollees about proposed Democratic cuts, another Medicare Advantage provider -- the AARP -- has been left free to lobby its members.

Of course the Washington leadership of the AARP is working closely with Democrats on health care reform. Incredibly, the self-appointed voice of America’s seniors supports “reforms” that will cut the benefits -- if not the entire Medicare Advantage coverage -- of millions of seniors.

How can this be? It’s simple. The AARP is a liberal interest group like any other, and it cut a deal with the party in charge in Washington. In exchange for selling out the seniors it claims to represent, the AARP will get potentially millions in lucrative insurance contracts, and quite possibly something more.

Tell Your Friends We’re Not Going to Take It Anymore

No plan that has to be advanced through dishonesty, intimidation and hypocrisy has the support of the American people.

But all that is required for these tactics to prevail in Washington is for good people to sit back and do nothing.

As debate in Congress continues, here’s what you can do: Send this newsletter to a friend, a co-worker, or a relative who isn’t yet aware of what Washington is doing.

Send this newsletter to your senators and representatives. Let them know that, despite the dishonesty, the intimidation and the hypocrisy, we know what they’re doing.

And we’re not going to take it anymore.

Your friend,

Newt



"The Web"

CNN(HD): "Fed has committed (STOLEN) $13 Trillion..." / "Socialist Revolution", comment Peter Schiff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAhbuuRg5gA

Rep. Boehner Accuses Obama of Subverting Constitution

By: Jim Meyers and David A. Patten

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/boehner_healthcare_reform/2009/10/02/267705.html?s=al&promo_code=8B1B-1

House Minority Leader John Boehner is accusing President Obama of subverting and circumventing the Constitution by appointing so-called czars who are not subject to Senate confirmation or scrutiny.

In a wide-ranging interview with Newsmax.TV on Thursday, the Ohio Republican discussed issues ranging from healthcare reform to President Obama’s refusal to engage the GOP leadership in bipartisanship.

But Boehner’s most pointed comments came when Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella asked whether he is concerned that Obama has appointed so many czars – special advisers or envoys who have relatively few restrictions on their authority or salary – most of whom do not have to win confirmation in the Senate, as Cabinet secretaries do.

To see the video of Minority Leader John Boehner's assessment of President Obama's proliferation of czars and the status of the healthcare debate, Click here.

http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=43132720001

"I think this whole issue has gotten way out of control in terms of the number of czars that he has and advisers around him," Boehner said.

While acknowledging that Obama has a right to domestic and international policy advisers, he contends that the president crossed the line with his czar appointments.



St. Louis U. cancels speech by activist David Horowitz

BY KAVITA KUMAR
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/DC6903C9355AA75E8625764400015B40?OpenDocument

Conservative activist David Horowitz will not be speaking at St. Louis University this month after school officials raised objections about the title and content of his speech, "Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights."

The SLU College Republicans, a student group, had invited Horowitz to speak on campus. The event would have been paid for out of student activity fees.

SLU said in a statement that it did not "ban" Horowitz from campus. Rather, the school was concerned that the event could be viewed as "attacking another faith and seeking to cause derision on campus."

Horowitz, reached by phone on Friday, called the university's decision "outrageous." He said his speech is about what he sees as a campaign against Jews and the state of Israel on many college campuses.
From the Interviews of David Horowitz: October 5, 2009
by David Horowitz

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/05/from-the-interviews-of-david-horowitz-october-5-2009/

“I have spoken at 400 universities… This is the first time my speech has been censored and stopped by an administration. And they are supposed to be the guardians of intellectual discourse.”

The school's action also prompted a sharp rebuke from Cary Nelson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, which found itself in the unusual position of defending Horowitz. The AAUP often does not see eye-to-eye with Horowitz, who criticizes college campuses for their women's studies departments and for allegedly stifling conservative opinions.

Nelson said in a statement that in canceling Horowitz's speech, SLU "joins the small group of campuses that are universities in name only."

"The free exchange of ideas is not just a comforting offshoot of higher education; it defines the fundamental nature of the enterprise," Nelson wrote.

SLU said it suggested students modify the proposed event to, for example, include scholars on Islam with different perspectives.

Danny Laub, a SLU junior and vice chairman of the College Republicans, said the group was open to some changes, such as a title more like "Terrorism Awareness" but said other suggestions would have diluted the program.

"We're not saying that David is 100 percent correct, but we think that stopping students from hearing what he has to say is not acceptable," Laub said.

His group met with university officials earlier this week to discuss the issue. Laub said he is especially interested in having the university review its speaker policy, which requires the university to approve all speakers who come to campus.

Horowitz spoke at Washington University in 2005 as part of the school's Assembly Series.

Protests often greet his speeches. And Horowitz said he knows that many people are particularly upset by the term "Islamo-fascist" but he said he does not insinuate that all Muslims are fascists.

This is not the first time SLU has objected to a speaker or event. "The Vagina Monologues," a play that touches on homosexuality and that is often attacked by Catholic groups, has been held on campus in the past. But in recent years, the school has refused to sponsor it, sending the student performance off campus.

Still, SLU's president, the Rev. Lawrence Biondi, has often spoken in favor of intellectual diversity.

"Sometimes that means hosting speakers, events or plays that some may find inappropriate on a Catholic college campus," he said in a 2006 speech. "But as soon as censorship begins at any university, where does censorship then end?"



Obama's 'safe schools' chief praised child-sex promoter

Jennings: I was 'inspired' by NAMBLA's Harry Hay

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111792

Kevin Jennings

A transcript from a 1997 speech shows Office of Safe Schools chief Kevin Jennings in the U.S. Department of Education expressed his admiration for Harry Hay, one of the nation's first homosexual activists who launched the Mattachine Society in 1948, founded the Radical Faeries and was a longtime advocate for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA.

"One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay," the transcript shows Jennings saying, "who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society. It took him two years to find one other person who would join.

"Well, [in] 1993," Jennings continued, "Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before."

WND has reported several times on Jennings' homosexual activism, including his founding of the organization "Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network," which advocates for homosexuality in public schools.

Most recently, he admitted that he now knows he should have reacted differently two decades ago when he was a teacher and he was approached by a 15-year-old student who admitted he had a sexual relationship with an older man.

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

Jennings response was to suggest using a condom, although the student's statement probably revealed, at a minimum, statutory rape.

His perspectives and activities have come under scrutiny because of his office, where he now is responsible for creating and implementing programs that make public school classrooms across America "safe."

The comments about Hay are significant because of Hay's extreme positions regarding homosexuality.

For example, according to the website for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, Hay told the organization in a 1983 speech: "I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need."

The statements from Jennings are being reported by Americans for Truth, an activist organization that works to expose the actions and statements of the nation's homosexual advocates.

It was just days earlier that a spokesman for President Barack Obama confirmed the president believes Roman Polanski should be held to account for his three decades-old confession to sexually assaulting a teen.

Americans for Truth chief Peter LaBarbera told WND the statements were transcribed from a tape of Jennings' address before a "Looking to the Future" panel at GLSEN's Mid-Atlantic conference Oct. 25, 1997, at Grace Church School in New York.

Jennings describes how "being finished" with his work might "some day mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say, 'Yeah, who cares?'"

"Close your eyes for a second and think, 'What would the world look like if we were through with our work? If we were done. If we could close the doors on 27th street [GLSEN's New York City headquarters], and shut down the chapters, and disband the board. What would be happening?'" he questioned.

"This is the only thing that can stop us, is if we believe that our dreams cannot come true," he continued.

Then he praised Hay.

"Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not – they were right, he was crazy. You are all crazy. We are all crazy. All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [blank] old way it is now. It's the people who think, 'No, I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?'' Or straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?'"

He suggested conference participants "think how much can change in one lifetime if in Harry Hay's one very short life, he saw change from not even one person willing to join him to a million people willing to travel to Washington to join him."

A spokeswoman in Jennings division at the U.S. Department of Education declined to respond to WND's request for comment today. A spokesman at the federal agency's office of public information said he would have to check before responding. No subsequent call or e-mail was received.

Besides Hay's endorsement of a "relationship" between teens and adult homosexuals, in 1994 he gave another NAMBLA address that cited the "growth and change" in the previous years.

"By far, gays' and lesbians' greatest strides were in the dimensions of gay consciousness and in our breathtaking discoveries in the richness and diversity of gay spirit. It is in the realm of gay spirit where all the groups comprising the gay and lesbian community currently are being challenged to take great leaps, to expand their self-visions and potential horizons," he said. "In this period, my beloved Radical Faeries moved to perceive that our lovely and beautiful sexuality is the gateway to spirit. Perhaps NAMBLA might consider expanding its parameters also."

According to the archives of Concerned Women for America, when Hay died in 2002, no mainstream media outlets reported his advocacy for the pedophile activities of NAMBLA.

Hay also urged that NAMBLA, which advocates for the elimination of any "age of consent" restrictions, be considered mainstream in America.

"NAMBLA's record as a responsible gay organization is well known. NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every major gay and lesbian march. … NAMBLA's call for the abolition of age of consent is not the issue. NAMBLA is a bona fide participant in the gay and lesbian movement. NAMBLA deserves strong support in its rights of free speech and association and its members' protection from discrimination and bashing," he said.

According to the Americans for Truth website, the incident involving the 15-year-old was just one among a series of egregious behaviors by Jennings.

Another was the "fistgate" scandal in which his organization led discussions at a seminar where "young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions, including 'fisting,'" the website said.

Yet another was Jennings' address in a New York City church on March 20, 2000.

He said: "Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, '[F—] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!"

Jennings is among a number of Obama "czars" who have become controversial, including Van Jones, the ex-Green Jobs Czar who quit in the middle of the night after being found to have called Republicans an obscenity and being linked to the idea that the U.S. government was behind or at least allowed 9/11.

Harvard professor Cass Sunstein, confirmed by the Senate as the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management, was exposed for his belief that animals should be given legal rights like humans.

Technically, Jennings is not one of Obama's "czars," who are special advisers accountable to no one but the president. Jennings was named to a post in the Department of Education. However, his hiring did not require legislative oversight, such as the Senate vetting process required for other appointees.

WND previously reported on a speech Jennings gave in 1995 outlining his manipulation of words to obtain his aims.

Excerpts have been posted on the website of MassResistance, where chief Brian Camenker has worked to oppose the demands of homosexual activists.

In the speech, Jennings described how he was concerned about being described as promoting homosexuality, so he chose to campaign on the idea of "safety" instead.

"If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – 'promoting homosexuality' is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are 'after their kids,'" he told the conference.

He continued, "In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one."



The Obamas Violated First Three Rules of Selling
By C. Edmund Wright

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_obamas_violated_first_thre.html

Of course Barack and Michelle Obama failed in Copenhagen. Their strategy could not possibly succeed. In their academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC). And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyone who has had to succeed in the real business world -- and that includes few if any on Team Obama -- instinctively knows that to get business done you have to believe in what you are doing and offer a product or service that is focused on the benefits to the customer. In the Obama World of Chicago pay-to-play power, business gets done by flexing muscle and clearing the field of your competitors. You don't have to sell anything. You don't have to believe in anything. It is fine to be self-focused. You simply have to apply the power of the applicable political machinery and you win.

Which could explain why the First Couple was so apparently lost in an attempt to actually have to make a sale to an audience not cowed by Chicago-style clout, inoculated by our own fawning Jurassic media, nor remotely interested in their life stories. Perhaps that is how and why they botched it so badly.

That is not to say that Chicago was a slam dunk in the first place. I have no way of knowing what their ultimate chances were. But the embarrassing first round knockout was a definitive rejection of both the Obamas and their approach. Their hearts were in selling the Obama brand, not U-S-A.

The Obamas' sales pitch was awful by any definition. Of course. How can our President, who has made his political fortune at the expense of the reputation of the country, sell our country to the IOC with a straight face?

The answer is he could not. And although it would have been an out of body experience, I still thought he would at least attempt to sell America and some notion of our logistical competence and love of sports and so on. I didn't think he would believe it, but certainly thought the teleprompter would sneak in something good about the country for him to read.

Nope.

He and the First Lady did not even pretend to be proud of us. They went on an unseemly, surreal begging campaign that mixed in uncomfortable bits and pieces of their personal histories with platitudes about what the Olympic Games could do for the children of Chicago. Oh, BTW, the Obama family would personally find it kind of a cool thing for the neighborhood.

So ask not what our country can do for your Olympics -- ask what your Olympics can do for our city. Heck, that was the First Lady's closing argument:
Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic Movement is about so more than
what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us.

That was how she ended her speech. That was her "please sign here" moment. For the record, her talk mentioned NOTHING about what we could offer the games. Not a word. No wonder they didn't sign on the dotted line.
Before that, some 40% of her speech was about her Dad and his M.S. Apparently the IOC didn't see the relevance. When she wasn't talking about her Dad, she was fantasizing about what a Chicago Olympiad would mean to her and the children of the city:

But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago.... that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

To which the IOC's answer was something like "get them ESPN and ESPN 2 if they need to be exposed to new sports and role models. And by the way, we're not so sure about that regardless of 'ability' concept either."

She was followed by the President -- who in all fairness did shelve some his blatantly anti-American sentiment for the time being -- but who also would only couch positive things about the nation in terms of diversity or Obama-ness.

Nearly one year ago... people from every corner of the world ...gathered to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals.
That our experiment in democracy was hanging on by the thread of whether he won the election or not was the point, not to mention the point that the world was interested only because he was involved. But his stance that modern history started with his inauguration continued:

Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest... (and) there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.
Well where do I sign? How can I possibly turn down an opportunity to make the 2016 Olympics so convenient for family Obama? After all, they are the family that has finally started -- in earnest -- the work of, well, whatever it is they are transforming in America.

Amazing.

When you consider these words in light of what Obama said about the United States last week at the U.N and the G20, it is clear to see that this is a man who really does think history started when he was born and America's greatness started when he was elected. These thoughts dominate any sober analysis of the written words of his speeches.

While our own Jurassic media is totally under his spell, the IOC and the much of the rest of the world media is not. They saw the Copenhagen sales pitch and rejected it out of hand. It came in fourth place out of four.

There is analysis out of the D.C.-Manhattan corridor already that the racists in the United States and the Republicans and talk radio and Fox News and the right leaning blogosphere are to blame for the Denmark disaster. They are not.

Neither is George Bush or Dick Cheney or even Donald Rumsfeld.

Elsewhere, there is talk that it was not-that-big-a-deal and that Chicago was done a favor by not getting the games. That may be true, but the Obama's and their Chicago buddies wanted it badly -- and thought they had it in the bag.

The bottom line is this: this was an Obama epic fail period. They were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama all the time.

And the world said, "No thanks."



My Name Is Rose

The first day of school our professor introduced himself and challenged us to get to know someone we didn't already know. I stood up to look around when a gentle hand touched my shoulder.

I turned around to find a wrinkled, little old lady beaming up at me with a smile that lit up her entire being.

She said, "Hi handsome. My name is Rose. I'm eighty-seven years old. Can I give you a hug?"

I laughed and enthusiastically responded, "Of course you may!" and she gave me a giant squeeze.

"Why are you in college at such a young, innocent age?" I asked.

She jokingly replied, "I'm here to meet a rich husband, get married, and have a couple of kids..."

"No seriously," I asked. I was curious what may have motivated her to be taking on this challenge at her age.

"I always dreamed of having a college education and now I'm getting one!" she told me.

After class we walked to the student union building and shared a chocolate milkshake.

We became instant friends. Every day for the next three months, we would leave class together and talk nonstop. I was always mesmerized listening to this "time machine" as she shared her wisdom and experience with me.

Over the course of the year, Rose became a campus icon and she easily made friends wherever she went. She loved to dress up and she reveled in the attention bestowed upon her from the other students. She was living it up.

At the end of the semester we invited Rose to speak at our football banquet. I'll never forget what she taught us. She was introduced and stepped up to the podium. As she began to deliver her prepared speech, she dropped her three by five cards on the floor.

Frustrated and a little embarrassed she leaned into the microphone and simply said, "I'm sorry I'm so jittery. I gave up beer for Lent and this whiskey is killing me! I'll never get my speech back in order so let me just tell you what I know."

As we laughed she cleared her throat and began, “We do not stop playing because we are old; we grow old because we stop playing.

There are only four secrets to staying young, being happy, and achieving success. You have to laugh and find humor every day. You've got to have a dream. When you lose your dreams, you die.

We have so many people walking around who are dead and don't even know it!

There is a huge difference between growing older and growing up.

If you are nineteen years old and lie in bed for one full year and don't do one productive thing, you will turn twenty years old. If I am eighty-seven years old and stay in bed for a year and never do anything I will turn eighty-eight.

Anybody can grow older. That doesn't take any talent or ability. The idea is to grow up by always finding opportunity in change. Have no regrets.

The elderly usually don't have regrets for what we did, but rather for things we did not do. The only people who fear death are those with regrets."

She concluded her speech by courageously singing "The Rose."

She challenged each of us to study the lyrics and live them out in our daily lives. At the year's end Rose finished the college degree she had begun all those years ago.

One week after graduation Rose died peacefully in her sleep.

Over two thousand college students attended her funeral in tribute to the wonderful woman who taught by example that it's never too late to be all you can possibly be.

When you finish reading this, please send this peaceful word of advice to your friends and family, they'll really enjoy it!

These words have been passed along in loving memory of ROSE.

REMEMBER, GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL. We make a Living by what we get. We make a Life by what we give.

God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage. If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it.



Military Pay

http://cf.telegram.com/town_portal_includes/display_full_blog.cfm?TOWN=Leicester&id=324058

This Airman hit it square on the mark about what our warriors get paid per year defending this great nation of ours...

Subject: Military Pay

This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America.

On Nov. 12, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year -- citing that the stated
13% wage increase was more than they deserve.

A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.

"Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.
Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40, after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year... No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum...

I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you.

Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this:
trade whatever MRE (meal-ready- to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that

I disagree with most of the points you present in your opened piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.

And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg Hill AFB AFNCC



Five Lessons

Here are five lessons to make you think about the way we treat people. It comes from an e-mail circulating on the net but I thought you might enjoy it.

http://www.lookwhatgmanfound.com/five-lessons-to-make-you-think-about-the-way-we-treat-people/

First Important Lesson - Cleaning Lady.

During my second month of college, our professor gave us a pop quiz. I was a conscientious student and had breezed through the questions until I read the last one:

‘What is the first name of the woman who cleans the school?’

Surely this was some kind of joke. I had seen the cleaning woman several times. She was tall, dark-haired and in her 50’s, but how would I know her name?

I handed in my paper, leaving the last question on blank. Just before class ended, one student asked if the last question would count toward our quiz grade.

‘Absolutely,’ said the professor. ‘In your careers, you will meet many people. All are significant. They deserve your attention and care, even if all you do is smile and say ‘hello.’

I’ve never forgotten that lesson. I also learned her name was Dorothy.

Second Important Lesson - Pickup in the Rain

One night, at 11:3 0 p.m., an older African American woman was standing on the side of an Alabama highway trying to endure a lashing rainstorm. Her car had broken down and she desperately needed a ride. Soaking wet, she decided to flag down the next car.
A young white man stopped to help her, generally unheard of in those conflict-filled 60s... The man took her to safety, helped her get assistance and put her into a taxicab.

She seemed to be in a big hurry, but wrote down his address and thanked him. Seven days went by and a knock came on the man’s door. To his surprise, a giant console color TV was delivered to his home. A special note was attached...

It read:
‘Thank you so much for assisting me on the highway the other night. The rain drenched not only my clothes, but also my spirits. Then you came along. Because of you, I was able to make it to my dying husband’s bedside just before he passed away... God bless you for helping me and unselfishly serving others.’

Sincerely, Mrs. Nat King Cole.

Third Important Lesson - Always remember those who serve.

In the days when an ice cream sundae cost much less, a 10-year-old boy entered a hotel coffee shop and sat at a table. A waitress put a glass of water in front of him.

‘How much is an ice cream sundae?’ he asked.

‘Fifty cents,’ replied the waitress.

The little boy pulled is hand out of his pocket and studied the coins in it.

‘Well, how much is a plain dish of ice cream?’ he inquired.

By now more people were waiting for a table and the waitress was growing impatient.

‘Thirty-five cents,’ she brusquely replied.

The little boy again counted his coins.

‘I’ll have the plain ice cream,’ he said.

The waitress brought the ice cream, put the bill on the table and walked away. The boy finished the ice cream, paid the cashier and left. When the waitress came back, she began to cry as she wiped down the table. There, placed neatly beside the empty dish,
were two nickels and five pennies..

You see, he couldn’t have the sundae, because he had to have enough left to leave her a tip.

Fourth Important Lesson. - The obstacle in Our Path.

In ancient times, a King had a boulder placed on a roadway. Then he hid himself and watched to see if anyone would remove the huge rock some of the king’s wealthiest merchants and courtiers came by and simply walked around it. Many loudly blamed the King for not keeping the roads clear, but none did anything about getting the stone out of the way.

Then a peasant came along carrying a load of vegetables. Upon approaching the boulder, the peasant laid down his burden and tried to move the stone to the side of the road. After much pushing and straining, he finally succeeded. After the peasant picked up his load of vegetables, he noticed a purse lying in the road where the boulder had been. The purse contained many gold coins and a note from the King indicating that the gold was for the person who removed the boulder from the roadway. The peasant learned what many of us never understand!

Every obstacle presents an opportunity to improve our condition.

Fifth Important Lesson - Giving when it Counts…

Many years ago, when I worked as a volunteer at a hospital, I got to know a little girl named Liz who was suffering from a rare & serious disease. Her only chance of recovery appeared to be a blood transfusion from her 5-year old brother, who had
miraculously survived the same disease and had developed the antibodies needed to combat the illness.. The doctor explained the situation to her little brother, and asked the little boy if he would be willing to give his blood to his sister.

I saw him hesitate for only a moment before taking a deep breath and saying, ‘Yes I’ll do it if it will save her.’ As the transfusion progressed, he lay in bed next to his sister and smiled, as we all did, seeing the color returning to her cheek. Then his face grew pale and his smile faded.

He looked up at the doctor and asked with a trembling voice, ‘Will I start to die right away’.

Being young, the little boy had misunderstood the doctor; he thought he was going to have to give his sister all of his blood in order to save her but he had chosen to save her anyway.



Obama's Work Ethic
By Ed Lasky

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/obamas_work_ethic.html

Barack Obama has displayed a disturbing pattern of work ethics: shirking work; claiming success when he was not entitled to do so; hiding his failures; and claiming the work of others as his own -- when it was successful. These are not character traits that we should associate with Presidents.

Barack Obama won praise for Dreams From My Father, a 1995 memoir of his life that was published when he reached the grand old age of thirty-four. The provenance of the book has come into question, led by a series of American Thinker columns by Jack Cashill, who used textual analysis to ascribe its writing --or at least a good portion of it -- to Bill Ayers, Obama's neighbor, former Weatherman, Obama campaign supporter and partner in various activist groups in Chicago. This claim has been echoed in a new book by best-selling author Christian Andersen, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage who wrote that sources close to the Obamas told him that Barack Obama turned over his notes and tapes to Bill Ayers to compose the book.

Subsequently, under questioning by Cashill on a nationally-syndicated radio program, Andersen averred that two separate sources in Hyde Park confirmed to him the story of sending the notes and tapes to Ayers.

Whoever wrote Dreams clearly embellished Obama's work history following graduation from Columbia. Obama claimed to have worked at a high powered consulting firm as a research assistant. A former colleague who sat down the hall from him debunked Obama's puffery in 2005:

First, it wasn't a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I'm sure we all wished that we were high-priced consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload.

Barack worked on one of the company's reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack's job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually don't send exactly what you ask for, and you can't always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting.

Obama may have felt the need to polish a resume that would fit on the back of a postage stamp, as my colleague Kyle Shiver has characterized his curriculum vitae. But the problem goes deeper than Cashill may have uncovered.
As a young attorney did he engage in the grind that is the fate of all young associates in law firms? Was he buried in books at the law firm library, barely able to keep his eyes open? Was he paying his dues? Not quite. Instead, he can be pictured with his feet up on his desk, scribbling ideas on a legal pad for Dreams of My Father -- the book that helped make him a star.

Allison Davis, a founding name partner of the firm that hired the young Barack Obama out of law school had this bit of history to share:

"Some of my partners weren't happy with that, Barack sitting there with his keyboard on his lap and his feet up on the desk writing the book."
I am sure Barack Obama's fellow associates were none-too-pleased, either. They were doing the work that paid for his salary. To whom did he bill his time? Tony Rezko? We will never know, since Barack Obama refused to release his billing records.

Incidentally, he did not finish the book when he was contractually required to do so. He jetted off to Bali, purportedly to work full-time on the book. Now, I ask you dear reader, is there any place in the world less conducive to work -- especially the arduous, thankless task of writing -- than a lush tropical paradise like Bali? Even the novelist James Michener had to wait until returning to the states to write a book about his time in the South Pacific. Nevertheless, somehow, miraculously, the manuscript was later completed -- but by whom?

Not content with the practice of law -- or whatever he was doing at the office, Obama left the law firm for greener pastures. While he was on the verge of running for the state Senate, he was tapped (by Bill Ayers, no less) to head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a donor-funded effort to improve Chicago schools. This was the only time that Obama had experience running anything.

How did he do?

He wasted over 100 million dollars and the program was declared a failure in an independent audit. Did we hear much about this failure?

No. A cover-up shielded Barack Obama from being blamed for the program's failure. Access to records was denied to researchers. Stanley Kurtz appeared on the Milt Rosenberg radio show on WGN in Chicago to report his findings. The show was bombarded by the talk radio equivalent of computer denial of service attacks: a blizzard of phone calls, intimidating and harsh, that tried to shut down the show and silence Kurtz. The attack was coordinated by the Obama campaign.

So much for transparency, and welcome to 1984, delayed two decades or so.

When he became a state senator were there instances that revealed work practices that might rub people the wrong way? Yes there were.

His state senate colleagues took umbrage at his modus operandi. He was what came to be known as a bill-jacker: someone who takes credit for legislation that others had written and worked the aisles to get passed.

He had a powerful patron, state Senate leader Emil Jones, who blessed this practice as a way to promote the career of a friend:

Back in his days as a state legislator, one of Obama's early claims was that he passed a "major" ethics bill in Springfield, Illinois the State Capitol. But, author David Freddoso's research for the book The Case Against Barack Obama finds that Obama didn't actually write the legislation but that Illinois State Senator Emil Jones merely allowed him to take the lead of an already crafted bill. Freddoso calls Obama's role "bill-jacking" as opposed to crafting.

...Abner Mikva, a former congressman and federal judge, had recommended to Jones that he give Obama a popular piece of legislation barring political fundraising on state property and barring lobbyists and contractors from giving gifts to legislators. The bill had enough loopholes to be relatively harmless, but it was a step in the direction of reform. Jones gave it to Obama. Obama proposed it. It passed, 52-4.18 The "Friends and Family" man, the old ward-heeler, was even capable of making Obama look like a reformer.

Instead of taking the lead in writing and proposing legislation, it has been Obama's practice to join bills crafted by other people and attempt to take a partial or full measure of credit not due him.
Old habits die hard-he carried on the noisome practice when he became a U.S. Senator.

After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the "President's Room," just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. KennedySen.. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen.. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them. But in a presidential contest involving three sitting senators, embellishment of legislative records may be an inevitability, Specter said with a shrug.
He "embellished" his role-as the Washington Post politely put it.

Any more examples of his modus operandi? Why yes, there are!

Barack Obama had the audacity to claim to have worked across the aisle with John McCain on ethics legislation (a two-fer: he claimed bipartisanship and having worked on a bill) when in fact, that was a "misrepresentation" or "blooper" as FactCheck.Org (a highly regarded, non-partisan monitoring group) so delicately put it:

"I worked with John McCain" on ethics legislation. In fact, the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of "partisan posturing" and added, "I won't make the same mistake again."

Obama offered a twisted account of his working with a Republican and "against party loyalty." He said he "worked with John McCain" on ethics legislation, when in fact their short-lived collaboration collapsed into bitter public wrangling long before any bill resulted.
How about claiming to be on a committee that had just successfully passed out some high-profile bit of legislation?

Barack Obama today boasted about a bill in "my committee,'' a committee on which he has no seat.

While speaking to the press in the Israeli town of Sderot, Obama mistakenly put the U.S. Senate banking committee on his resume, although the Illinois senator does not serve on the committee and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is the chairman.

The Republican National Committee distributed an e-mail pointing out Obama's mistake with a subject line of "Obama's Gaffe Machine Rolls Into Israel."

During the press conference, Obama said, "Just this past -- this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon."
There he goes again.

How about his finely crafted speeches? Did he actually write all those on his own -- as did, say, Abraham Lincoln? No, though the mainstream media obscured (hid) this fact until after the election.

During the campaign, it was clear that he had plagiarized the speeches of his friend, Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts. That revelation became widely-known. They shared a campaign strategist in David Axelrod. What worked for Patrick, worked for Obama. The same type of ringing phrases, the same cadences, the same ideas. They had passed the test and helped to elect Patrick. Market-proven and battle-tested.

But what is not as well-known is the provenance of his famous "race-speech" made in Philadelphia after revelations of the bigotry of his Pastor-Jeremiah Wright-became public. Obama's campaign for the Presidency was at risk. What to do? Well-give a speech, of course-because the media loved praising his speeches. In this notable case, they went into overdrive with over the top praise for the brilliance of Obama who -the story was-had written the speech himself. Except, of course, that he hadn't. He didn't write it: it was manufactured for him by his ghostwriter-speechwriter Jon Favreau (Kennedy had his Ted Sorensen; Obama has his Jon Favreau). We had to wait for this revelation until after Barack Obama assumed office.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:

Remember Barack Obama's big race speech back in March, the one that invited comparisons to Lincoln? Neither does anyone else, but it seemed like a big deal at the time. On March 18 The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder did a short item called "Speechwriter of One" (quoting verbatim):

This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers.

This now appears to have been puffery, at least if the Washington Post has the story right:

One Saturday night in March, Obama called [Jon] Favreau and said he wanted to immediately deliver a speech about race. He dictated his unscripted thoughts to Favreau over the phone for 30 minutes--"It would have been a great speech right then," Favreau said--and then asked him to clean it up and write a draft. Favreau put it together, and Obama spent two nights retooling before delivering the address in Philadelphia the following Tuesday.

"So," Obama told Favreau afterward. "I think that worked."
Favreau is now the most highly paid of President Obama's staffers. A matter of fact, he earns as much as he can legally earn at the West Wing-hundreds of thousands of dollars every year . I suppose he is worth every one of our hard-earned dollars -- at least he is to Barack Obama.

So are we to treat his claim regarding his two books (The Audacity of Hope being the other) that he "actually wrote them myself" with some skepticism and the claim of Cashill with some credence?

A side effect of his sorry work habits is what he does when he cannot avoid having mistakes pinned on him. What does he do then? Jake Tapper of ABC News noted a very discreditable practice of Obama's: he scapegoats staffers as the ones to be blamed.

Is this the type of person anyone of us have ever enjoyed working with-let alone enjoy watching ascend the corporate ladder. Is this the type of person we want as President?

Has he continued this type of behavior as President?

Yes he has.

When his policies have come up a cropper he makes Cabinet and other leading officials fall on their swords so he can be shielded from owning up to his responsibility. . Lately, Greg Craig has taken the dive for Obama's Gitmo policy disaster. He was the latest fall guy.

The buck does not stop at Obama's desk. But we should have known that from his budget-busting deficits.

Is this why he dithers in the face of major geopolitical challenges? Is he afraid of making a mistake? Can he just vote present as President? Is this why he outsources so much domestic policy to Congress and foreign policy to the United Nations? Does he carry on his practice of voting present -- as he did as a state Senator -- while being President?

Does it seem he just doesn't like to do hard work?

Are all these habits just manifestations of a horrible ethic when it comes to work?

A friend of mine once criticized Barack Obama for not having an honest bone in his body. I responded that may be true -- but he sure does have plenty of lazy ones.



"The e-mail Bag"

Observing Life

Two guys were roaring down a country road on a motorcycle when the driver slowed up and pulled over. His leather jacket had a broken zipper, and he told his friend, "I can't drive anymore with the air hitting me in the chest like that." "Just put the jacket on backwards," his friend advised. They continued down the road but around the next bend, they lost control and wiped out. Banta came upon the accident and ran to call the police. They asked him, "Are they showing any signs of life?" "Well," Banta explained, "the driver was until I turned his head around the right way!"