ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091030

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"My Comments"

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report will temporarily suspend this publication as I go into Carolina Medical Center-Union on Monday AM for an out-patient cataract surgery on my right eye. I will return ASAP. Then on November 10, I will continue with the second surgerical cataract operation; this one on my left eye; hopefully, a mere few days.

God Bless you all.

Happy Haloween!

http://kaitlynpelker21.glogster.com/Happy-Haloween/

Oscar Y. Harward



"Daily Motivations"

Love the moment, and the energy of that moment will spread beyond all boundaries. -- Sister Corita Kent

"You can't have a better tomorrow if you're thinking about yesterday." -- Charles Kettering



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"I am the Lord, the God of all the peoples of the world. Is anything too hard for Me?" (Jeremiah 32:27)

What, in your life, is impossible? What impassable obstacle is facing you? In God, nothing is impossible and no way is impassible.

Napoleon, one of the greatest military geniuses of human history, was only saying what everyone else thought when he proclaimed, "God is on the side of the heaviest artillery."

And who would have argued? There are certain laws that govern human affairs. One of these is that the side with the greatest resources usually wins the war.

But history didn't play out that way---at least not for Napoleon. He had 250 cannons, a vast army of experienced fighters, and his own strategic skill. The Duke of Wellington, his opponent, had only 160 cannons, a loose coalition of ragtag troops, and a desperate situation. But Napoleon lost.

Now: What odds would you have given the unimposing handful of Jesus' disciples versus the power and dominion of the Roman Empire, which made Napoleon's empire look puny? Yet ultimately, the message of God's love overcame even the Roman Empire. When men devise the "laws" of human affairs, they fail to reckon with the power of God. God plus one is always a majority.

We make a sad mistake when we discount the power of Almighty God. Too many Christians execute their plans as if it all depends upon them, rather than Him. Is massive spiritual revival in America impossible? Not for God. Is it impossible to make it through this time of economic challenge? Not for God.



"The Patriot Post"

"Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society. In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage." -- Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 1794



Message to GOP: Don't Take Tea Partiers For Granted

It's the dream of every political strategist: a large and highly motivated group of voters ready to get out, work for, and financially support a slate of candidates whom they align with politically. True to form, the national Republican Party missed the opportunity to take full advantage of the Tea Party movement, mainly because the GOP is continuing to back candidates who don't always work for lower taxation and less government.

Tea Party protesters angered by Republicans supporting Wall Street bailouts and the Waxman-Malarkey cap-n-tax bill are also bitter at the GOP establishment -- particularly the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- for backing certain incumbent or anointed candidates who are working with Leftists in Congress.

To that end, conservatives and political activist groups such as Club for Growth are throwing their support behind candidates whom the GOP establishment has shunned, such as Chuck DeVore in California for U.S. Senate; Marco Rubio in Florida for U.S. Senate (who is in a primary battle against the "moderate" outgoing governor Charlie Crist); and Doug Hoffman of New York, who, as we reported last week, opted to run under the Conservative Party banner after being spurned by local Republican officials. Instead, ACORN-backed Dede Scozzafava, whose positions make the Democrat candidate look like Ronald Reagan, is the official Republican candidate running in the upcoming Nov. 3 special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, though her campaign is out of cash. Backing ACORN candidates is unfortunately illustrative of the elite GOP's mindset.

In a year where the political winds and poor performance of Democrats both favor a Republican resurgence, their treatment of this motivated voter bloc shows the national party is doing itself no favors by listening to the Beltway insiders rather than the people. GOP big shots may look back after next November and lament a lost opportunity.


National Security - Warfront With Jihadistan: Troop Increase

While the Teleprompter-in-Chief dithers over whether to win the war in Afghanistan by increasing the number of combat troops requested by his commanders, more troops have already started to join the fight. These troops were already in the deployment pipeline before the recent request by General Stanley McChrystal for up to 80,000 additional combat troops. Most of the new troops are support and logistics forces, including engineers and medical personnel, as well as intelligence officials and military police. They will sustain the 21,000 combat troops Obama sent in March. Total U.S troop strength in Afghanistan now numbers about 65,000.

Great Britain also appears ready to raise its troop levels in response to the increased Taliban resistance, according to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Five hundred additional British troops may join the 9,000 already in Afghanistan, providing "certain conditions" are met by the Afghan government. Why isn't the presence of jihadis enough of a condition?

As for the jihadis, it appears that the Taliban are in a better financial situation than their al-Qa'ida brethren. David Cohen, a Treasury Department specialist on terrorist financing, recently said that the Taliban use bribery to raise significant funding from Afghanistan's poppy farmers and heroin traffickers. They also earn money by offering "protection," for a price, from legitimate Afghan businesses. On the other hand, al-Qa'ida is apparently cash-starved and losing power and influence, the product of, according to Cohen, a long-running effort by the U.S. and its allies to target rich donors and interfere with the group's ability to move money between borders. Sounds like a good strategy to apply to the Taliban.



Business & Economy - Income Redistribution: Taxing the Patience of Business

Realizing its free-money-for-everyone policy has become problematic now that it has met the enemy -- that is, reality -- the Obama administration has been putting the full-court press on ways to pay for its government-granted bounty. The latest proposal, beamed down directly from Planet Obama, was to raise taxes more than $200 billion on those "evil" multinational companies -- you know, like Microsoft, General Electric, IBM and the others that led Western civilization to be the first out of the back-breaking Industrial Age and into the Information Age. Wait, we're getting a mental flash: something about goose .... golden egg -- well, whatever, it escapes us at the moment. It was nothing, really.

Never mind the fact that the existing confiscatory taxes against U.S.-based multinational corporations have helped to make them as competitive as "Team Prius" at the Funny Car Nationals. No, Obama's answer is not to lower domestic corporate taxes to entice businesses to operate principally within the U.S., but rather to raise taxes for all companies that do business here, wherever they are based. Um, brilliant.

Business is a particularly juicy target for the administration, because liberals suffer from a love-hate relationship with business: namely, they love to hate it. However, they also realize that "big business" also implies jobs (read: votes) and "big money," which can wield big political power, especially when provoked.

Accordingly, the administration has tabled -- for now, at least -- the squeeze-more-blood-from-business-turnips proposal. Still, faced with a $12 trillion national debt -- $2 trillion of which accrued just this year alone -- don't look for the administration to scrap these money-grabbing schemes for long. In fact, aides have pointed out that although the administration has ditched the idea for now, it may (read: will) revisit the plan as part of a "broader tax overhaul sometime next year."

In defending their position, business critics -- including the president -- swipe that U.S. multinationals "ship jobs overseas" and ought to get no tax breaks, period. They further label these companies "tax cheats." Of course, even the most basic, emperor-has-no-clothes introspection would beg the question as to why these companies had shipped any jobs overseas, but apparently answering that question amounts to tensor calculus for Capitol Hill's smooth-brains.

We hope, however, that this answer will reduce to simple math, once legislators start learning first-hand from the thinning of their ranks about how subtraction works.



Payroll Parodies

Driven by a sense of panic over the need to be seen doing something about the high unemployment rate, Democrats are working hard to prove the truth of Ronald Reagan's observation that the most frightening words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Instead of pursuing tried-and-true methods of job creation by making a favorable business environment via low taxes and low regulation, liberals think businesses would rather put their time to "good use," filling out government forms. Complete enough forms, jump through enough hoops and comply with arcane regulations, and employers will eventually receive a gubmint check as part of a payroll tax reimbursement scheme only a bureaucrat could love. Although this ridiculous idea validates the utter failure of the Democrats $787 billion stimulus debacle to rescue the economy, it's worth noting this same idea was tried without success by the Carter administration.

Not content with merely serving out Carter's second term, the Obama administration pretends to be mystified about the future recovery predicted by some economists as being jobless despite the normalization of credit markets. More similarities with the economic implosion of the late '70s are sure to follow so long as the government continues to believe the economy is nothing more than a command-and-control phenomenon. As President Reagan once presciently quipped, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. When it stops moving, subsidize it." What we need are free-market politicians and fewer bureaucratic meddlers to get in our way.



U.S. Cedes Control of Internet

Global access to the Internet is poised to become global control of the Internet. With little fanfare, Washington has quietly ceded control over the technology the United States developed and shared with the rest of the world in the first place. According to the UK Guardian, the change came in the form of a contract negotiated between the U..S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the California-based company that "ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and ..org." In essence, the new agreement ended the old one between ICANN and the U.S. government, "opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet."

This means that, while the United States previously held some sway over ICANN's actions, decision-making authority will now be expanded internationally, including to countries with histories of censorship and human rights abuse as well as to those with a penchant for global regulation and taxation.

Of course, the EU welcomed the cession, no doubt satisfied that its recent whining over too much American control was rewarded (surprise!) with appeasement from the Obama administration.



From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has endured attacks from the Left for decades. But wild-eyed leftists took it a step further by derailing the Missouri native's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams' NFL franchise (as a minority partner, yet). On Wednesday, the group attempting the purchase dropped Limbaugh.

The anti-Limbaugh charge was led by a lineup of CNN and MSNBC "journalists," race hustler Al Sharpton and other dimwitted leftists (but we repeat ourselves). MSNBC's tingly-legged Chris Matthews fantasized that, like James Bond villain Mr. Big, "at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into [Limbaugh's] head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp." But that's not the end of it.

These two networks, along with the sports channels and who knows how many locals, repeated a concocted quote attributed to Rush as evidence of his racism: "Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." The only problem is Limbaugh never said it. Retractions or corrections of the record have been relegated to such places as Twitter, where CNN's Rick Sanchez tweeted, "we didn't confirm quote. our bad." Classy.

The minor detail of the quote being fake didn't stop David Zirin, sports editor of The Nation, a magazine described by its staff as the "flagship of the left," from calling Limbaugh an "unreconstructed racist" and a "swine" who views black players "with naked and open contempt because of the color of their skin." Nor did it stop Al Sharpton from crowing that the group's decision to drop the radio host "is a moral victory for all Americans -- especially the players that have been unfairly castigated by Rush Limbaugh."

(Newsbusters has more on this character assassination here, here, here and here.)

So to recap, Rush has been on the air 15 hours a week for 21 years and the best the media could come up with was a fake quote? And that's a "moral victory"? It reminds us of the "Two Minutes Hate" in George Orwell's "1984," in which the "Enemy of the People had flashed onto the screen" and the people were conditioned to hate him, even using the word "swine." David Zirin, call your office.


On Cross-Examination

"The CNN and MSNBC 'news' networks are guilty of promoting outright falsehoods and purposely using fabricated disinformation created by left-wing radicals to destroy a conservative leader. There is no grey area here. .... Perhaps if they spent less time fact-checking SNL comedy skits and more time fact-checking what they laughably call 'news,' they would have a chance to salvage their tattered reputations, sinking even faster with this intentional character assassination." --Media Research Center president Brent Bozell



And Last...

"Police say an Ohio woman being driven around in a limousine announced at a coat store she'd won the lottery and would pay for everyone's purchases but ended up causing a riot when customers realized it was a hoax," reports the Associated Press. For some reason, that made us think of the limousine liberals in Congress promising health insurance for everyone. More from the AP: "Columbus police Lt. Michael Deakins says the woman announced Tuesday she'd spend $500 on everyone at a Burlington Coat Factory, prompting customers to gather at registers and call relatives. When police arrived, 500 people filled the store and another 1,000 were outside." That's nothing. According to Democrats, 47 million "Americans" (or is it 30million -- we never can keep track of their statistics) are beating down the doors and demanding ObamaCare for all.

"Cashiers rang up sales before discovering the woman had no money. Angry customers grabbed clothes without paying," said the AP report. These thieves, no doubt, were Democrat constituents. And finally, the woman was arrested on three other warrants but hasn't yet been charged for the coat chaos, "pending a mental health evaluation." Before any more is done with ObamaCare, perhaps we should schedule 535 of those same evaluations for Congress.



"ADF"

ADF attorneys ask U.S. Supreme Court to review Okla. Ten Commandments decision
High court asked to stop another attempt to censor acknowledgment of nation’s religious heritage

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3315

WASHINGTON — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund asked the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that said a Ten Commandments display at the Haskell County, Okla., courthouse is unconstitutional. A district court had ruled in favor of ADF attorneys representing the county in the lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, until the 10th Circuit reversed the decision.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to abandon their religious heritage simply to appease someone’s political agenda,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “There is no wall of separation between our religious heritage and the public square. Thomas Jefferson’s ‘wall’ protected the church from government control, not the public square from references to America’s religious heritage. Such public acknowledgments do not create a constitutional crisis. If they did, we’d have to sandblast many walls and monuments in Washington, D.C., including the walls of the Supreme Court.”

In March 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of one offended individual, filed suit to remove a Ten Commandments monument located on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn. The lawn includes memorials to the Choctaw Indian Tribe, World War II veterans, Vietnam War veterans, Korean War veterans, and settlers buried in unmarked graves, among others. In August 2006, a federal district court judge ruled that the presence of the monument was constitutional. The ACLU appealed that decision to the 10th Circuit, which reversed the lower court ruling.

In the petition for review filed in Haskell County Board of Commissioners v. Green, ADF attorneys wrote, “Circuit courts need this Court’s guidance on the proper analysis to apply to monuments passively acknowledging religion’s historical significance that are part of historical displays on government grounds. Otherwise, these cases will continue to be decided on irrelevant facts like those that led to the finding of unconstitutionality in this case: age of the monument, how quickly it was challenged, whether it is displayed by a small or large town, and the personal religious views of the government officials who allowed it.”

“The Ten Commandments should not be attacked to cover up their role in American history,” said Theriot. “They clearly have historical significance for our country. To ignore that would mean rewriting the history books.”

Attorney Brent Olsson of the Oklahoma City firm of Huckaby, Fleming, Greenwood & Olsson, LLP, is assisting with the case.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. ADF President Alan Sears is co-author with Craig Osten of the book The ACLU vs. America.



"The Web"

Hate crimes law - ungodly, unconstitutional, unnecessary

This legislation, tied onto the 2010 Military Budget, is another example of the anti-God, radical, Liberal left-wing, White House and Capitol Hill Democrats at its best, or should I say at its worst. This is a law which is in violation of our Holy Bible. - oyh

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=744446

A Christian evangelist who was once arrested, jailed, and charged under Pennsylvania's hate crimes law says the federal hate crimes bill signed into law by President Obama is one of the most dangerous laws in the history of the United States.

With the stroke of President Obama's pen yesterday, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act became law. It creates additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by the victim's "actual or perceived" gender, "gender identity," sexual orientation, or disability.

Michael Marcavage, director of Philadelphia-based Repent America, was one of 11 Christians who were jailed and charged with a hate crime for carrying Bible verse banners and preaching at a 2004 homosexual pride event in Philadelphia. The charges were later dismissed -- and in 2008, the state's Supreme Court ruled the law had been passed illegally by the Pennsylvania legislature.

Marcavage says the new federal hate crimes law is yet another move by the federal government to "silence Christians."

"What this bill does is [seek] to shut down those who dare to speak against the sin of homosexuality with the hope and freedom that is found in Jesus Christ," says the Christian activist.

"Having been charged under a hate crime, I'm definitely moved with compassion on those who the government is trying to silence us from reaching out to," he continues, "but we're going to continue to do as we have been doing, and ministering to those trapped in the bondage of this lifestyle."

Marcavage offers three reasons why he opposes the new law. He says it is ungodly because it "seeks to shut down the gospel of Jesus Christ"; unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment; and also unnecessary because there are already laws on the books that punish violent crimes.

After 10-year dispute, expansion of hate crimes law to gays signed

Move may help Obama quell rising discontent from rights groups

By Perry Bacon Jr. - Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804909.html?wpisrc=newsletter

When a gay Wyoming college student was slain in 1998, congressional Democrats pledged to broaden the definition of federal hate crimes by the end of that year to include attacks based on sexual orientation.

The effort instead turned into a decade-long proxy war between liberal groups that want to expand gay rights and conservative groups that do not. But Wednesday, President Obama signed the bill and then hosted a White House reception for gay activists and the parents of the slain student, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard.

"After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," Obama said after the signing.

During that period, the House and the Senate separately approved the hate crimes expansion numerous times. But congressional Republicans repeatedly used legislative tactics to block final passage, arguing that most crimes that would fall under the law could be prosecuted under other statutes, and conservative groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition said the legislation would turn "homosexual behaviors as well as cross-dressing, transvestism, and transsexualism into federally-protected 'minority' groups."

This year, with enlarged majorities in Congress, Democrats attached the hate crimes law to a $681 billion defense spending bill this month over GOP objections. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the approach put "radical social policy" on the "back of our soldiers."

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin. Under the law, judges can impose harsher penalties on crimes that are motivated by such animus, and the Justice Department can help local police departments investigate alleged hate crimes.

According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies around the country reported 7,624 hate crime incidents in 2007, the most recent year for which data were available. More than half were categorized as racially motivated, and about 17 percent were based on sexual orientation.

For Obama, the signing could quell rising discontent among gay rights groups, which have complained that he has done little to advance their causes in first year in office.

In particular, many gay activists say, Obama has not made good on his pledge to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prevents gays from serving openly in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively allows states that do not permit gay marriage to not recognize the unions of gay couples married in states that do.

"I think that obviously there's a great deal of impatience and frustration within our community, not just related to the last 10 months, but the last 10 years," said Joe Solomonese, president of the District-based Human Rights Campaign, which has worked for years on the issue. "But the White House was an absolutely critical partner in getting this legislation to the president's desk, and I have no doubt the White House will continue to be a partner in this fight."

Shepard's mother, Judy, said in a statement that she and her husband, Dennis, "are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly."

Although the House of Representatives passed the law 249 to 175 in a mostly party-line vote in April, the Senate added the legislation to the defense bill instead of passing it separately. The move angered Republicans, most of whom voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes of both provisions in Congress.

"The Republican machine, they don't have the megaphone of the Obama administration, but maybe if they could have more effectively got their message out," said Mathew D. Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group.

But Rick Scarborough, head of the Texas-based conservative group Vision America, which has long opposed the hate crimes legislation, said there may be little Republicans can do to stop further gay rights legislation.

"I think they [bills that would expand gay rights] are morally wrong, and I'll continue to do my best to enter the debate," he said. "But it's a new day. These were the promises of Barack Obama, and he's living up to them."



Religious Expression

http://www.theacru.org/acru/ken_blackwell_and_ken_klukowski_restoring_proper_constitutional_protection_to_religious_expression/

This piece originally appeared on the Family Research Council website on October 26, 2009.

A situation is unfolding in Florida that is illustrative of how far American culture has listed toward a militantly-secular society that is overtly hostile to expressions of faith and Judeo-Christian traditions. This unfortunate episode is the predictable result of the Supreme Court's half-century of deviation from the constitutional design for religious liberty, a deviation now reinforced by legal principles that are foundational to the American system of law. Religious liberty must be reinstated by the Supreme Court if society is again to enjoy the benefits of our young people receiving moral instruction.

Although others have written at length about the religious beliefs and practices of the Founding Fathers and the Early Republic, less space has been devoted to understanding how we arrived at the current state of affairs. Such an understanding is a sine qua non to finding a route to remediate our religious freedom jurisprudence and restore proper constitutional protection to religious expression in America.

I. An Unprecedented Outrage in Florida

On September 17, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida considered whether three employees from the Santa Rosa County School District should be imprisoned for praying. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has brought a lawsuit against the school system for various instances where faith-based actions occurred at various school-related events. The school district ill-advisedly signed an agreement with the ACLU in an attempt to end the litigation. The federal judge on the case then issued an order binding both parties to the agreement.

But the wording of the agreement was broad and sweeping, and predictably a couple incidents transpired that became dual focal points of the present controversy. As to the facts of the scenario, it is sufficient to note that the first of these incidents, in which the principal of Pace High School asked the athletic director to pray at an after-school lunch wherein only adult employees and volunteers were present, did not violate the order. Another incident, at which a school clerk asked her private-sector husband to pray at an evening awards banquet, likely did violate the order.

Apparently unconcerned about the debatable nature of these marginal incidents, however, the ACLU scurried back to court, where the judge issued contempt citations against all three individuals and referred the matter to the U.S. attorney's office for Florida's northern district. The prosecutor (an appointee of Barack Obama) in turn decided to pursue contempt citations against all three, which led to the September 17 trial date. The possible penalties included a $5,000 fine and six months in jail.

The first two individuals (Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman) are now being represented by Liberty Counsel. Mat Staver, the head of that organization and the dean of Liberty University School of Law, asserts that to the best of anyone's research, this is the first instance of people being criminally prosecuted in the United States for praying.

Liberty Counsel prevailed at the September 17 proceeding. The threat of contempt citations against all three defendants was removed at the trial, with the principal and athletic director being adjudicated "not guilty" at trial. Liberty Counsel is now proceeding further with this matter, seeking to have the trial judge vacate and modify the original order, and is prepared to take this matter up on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit if it does not succeed in the district court.

Although the aphorism that "there's a first for everything" is often true, it is a sad commentary on the state of religious liberty in modern America that we are seeing this sort of proceeding, even if it is for the first time. The nation would have been better off had we never seen such a travesty; it is unprecedented, and ought to remain that way.

This is not necessarily a criticism of the judge presiding over this case, as the judge simply incorporated the agreement that the parties had made. Nor is this a criticism of the criminal justice system, although critical remarks seem appropriate for a U.S. attorney who did not exercise his prosecutorial discretion to immediately take incarceration off the table as a possible punishment.

Rather, this is a revealing moment of just how far our culture and our constitutional law have strayed from their historical and philosophical moorings. Something is terribly wrong when simple expressions of faith can result in ordinary people doing time behind bars.

This sad episode is unfolding because the judge in question found that the agreement, even if undesirable and unwise, did not violate the Constitution. And it is true that this agreement may indeed not violate current Supreme Court precedent on religious liberty.

But that is precisely the problem.

II. The Rule of Law in a Common Law System

America has a common-law system. That means that when our courts issue an opinion in a case, the holding of that case becomes law; it is binding precedent for that court and all inferior courts. When the case concerns a statute or regulation, the court's judgment and opinion can be superseded by changing the underlying law. But when the question presented in the case is constitutional in nature, then the court's judgment and opinion become the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution for that issue, controlling all within that court's jurisdiction.

The magnitude of the consequences of such decisions naturally depends upon the court in question. The United States--including its territories--is divided into 94 judicial districts. The holdings of the district courts only bind that district, and everyone enjoys a right of appeal. Those districts are grouped into twelve appellate circuits. The appellate decisions of the U.S. courts of appeals are then binding on that court and all of the states and lower courts within them. And the entire nation is then bound by our highest tribunal, the United States Supreme Court.

The common law system usually provides stability for our country's laws under the doctrine of stare decisis. A lower court is inescapably bound by the precedents of whatever higher courts can claim jurisdiction over it. And under the doctrine of stare decisis (which loosely translated is Latin for "let the decision stand" or "stand by the decision") a court must adhere to its own precedent unless there is a special justification for overruling it. Stare decisis rests on the premise that it is usually better for a question of law to be settled, than for that question to be settled correctly.

That doctrine is the font of much of the security America enjoys under the rule of law. So long as judges are careful and methodical, and the jurists are well-educated, experienced and of sound judgment and measured temperament, there is a cumulative effect whereby wise decisions are reaffirmed, the occasional faulty decision is eventually overruled, and the government and society come to rest and rely upon legal rules and principles to which all are equally subject and from which all enjoy equal protection.

Yet there should be a measured reliance on stare decisis to prevent us from going too far afield from the purpose and meaning of the Constitution. Stare decisis is a general policy, not an inexorable command, as the Supreme Court restated as recently as 1997 in Agostini v. Felton. The Constitution was deliberately written to achieve certain things, mostly concerning either the structure and duties of government or certain specific, enumerated rights possessed by individuals. If a faulty precedent becomes the basis for an entire line of cases, at the point where that precedent and its progeny works against the meaning of the relevant constitutional text--or is destructive of the principles that the text was meant to propagate--then the judiciary should remediate its own jurisprudence.

But where is the balance drawn? Each judge--and more regularly each Supreme Court justice, because it is more often the case that only the Supreme Court is truly free to reconsider these matters--draws the line in a different place. It is a balancing of precedent (protected by stare decisis) versus first principles.

Take an illustrative example. Justice Clarence Thomas (the most conservative member of the Court) is perhaps its most outspoken proponent of advancing first principles through constitutional interpretation. He is so often willing to overturn precedent to return to first principles on a given issue that Justice Antonin Scalia (the second-most conservative member) has said that Justice Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis. Justice Scalia was knowingly exaggerating with that statement, but he used it to make the point that, relative to where Justice Scalia draws the line, Justice Thomas seems to not feel obligated at all to adhere to precedents that Justice Thomas believes to be wrongly decided.

Yet this is a relative standard. In 2006, the Supreme Court decided the campaign finance case Randall v. Sorrell, challenging a Vermont law limiting campaign contributions. In addition to the central question in the case, the petitioners also presented the question of whether the Court should overrule Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 case where the Court held that contributing campaign money was sufficiently removed from advancing political speech that such contributing enjoyed less First Amendment protection than political speech, and as such could be more heavily regulated without running afoul of the Constitution. (Conservatives have always considered Buckley to be an egregiously-wrong decision.)

Although the Court struck down the Vermont statute as excessively burdening the First Amendment, it also voted 7-2 to uphold Buckley. Chief Justice John Roberts--the most stringent adherent of stare decisis on the Court--held that Buckley was such a well-settled precedent that it should be retained regardless of its admittedly-serious defects. Justice Samuel Alito voted not to overturn Buckley because the petitioners had not bothered to fully argue that issue in their briefs, and he believed stare decisis minimally required a petitioner to endeavor making a compelling argument for overturning precedent. Justices Scalia and Thomas both voted to overrule Buckley, writing that Buckley so plainly violates core free speech principles that it is completely intolerable under the First Amendment. In Randall, Chief Justice Roberts could have said that neither Justice Scalia nor Justice Thomas believes in stare decisis.

So much depends on what standard one employs as a comparator. American law would not be a firm foundation for our society without stare decisis providing stability and predictability to our system of law. But precious freedoms and essential principles could be lost over time due to faulty adjudications if stare decisis were an absolute bar to revisiting issues in court. Few if any judicial functions require more discernment and care than finding this crucial balance.

III. Flawed Religious Freedom Jurisprudence, Enshrined in Precedent

That is the problem with the Supreme Court's religious freedom jurisprudence. The Supreme Court case law governing the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment--collectively referred to as the Religion Clauses--is heavily freighted with a series of liberal precedents that are in conflict with historical practices and understandings to such a degree that it would be unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers, or indeed perhaps to any American statesman before the New Deal. This period saw a concurrent leftward shift in the federal judiciary, which reached its most extreme orientation during the final years of the Warren Court in the 1960s, placing our constitutional law in a belligerent posture vis-a-vis people and institutions of faith regarding their First Amendment rights.

This secularizing trend began in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education. In Everson, a New Jersey school district was reimbursing parents of parochial school students for the cost of transporting their children to and from school, as authorized by New Jersey statute. The parents won that case 5-4, but this proved a Pyrrhic victory, as two rules were promulgated by the Court's opinion that have haunted our religious liberties since that day.

It is often difficult for non-lawyers to appreciate the significance of Supreme Court opinions. In legislative or administrative matters, all that ultimately matters is the final vote or disposition; words preceding the dispositive act are generally inconsequential. But in law the converse is more often true; the written opinion trumps the Court's vote in terms of importance. The judgment in an individual case binds the parties in that dispute, but the words of the opinion handed down include rules of law that bind not only every court in the land, but every government official at the federal and state level.

Such was the case with Everson. First, the Court held that the Establishment Clause applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. By its own diction, the Establishment Clause only applies to the federal government. That was true for the entire Bill of Rights before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. While there are compelling philosophical and legal arguments as to why certain rights--such as free speech, free exercise of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms--should apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the historical record is clear that the Establishment Clause was designed solely to prevent the federal government from choosing a single Christian denomination as the official American religion, with taxpayer support for those churches, fines and levies against other faiths, and possibly even government licenses for preaching (as had existed in Great Britain). This entire rationale was lost by extending the Establishment Clause to the states.

The second monumental change in religious liberty in Everson was the "wall of separation between church and state." This case was the genesis of that doctrine in American law, which is cited for the proposition that the Establishment Clause requires the principle of neutrality: that government must be neutral in matters pertaining to religion, including not favoring religion over irreligion. That "wall of separation" phraseology comes from an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. Although it is quite evident that this phrase from that letter-which was private correspondence, not a policy statement-meant that churches enjoyed a wall of protection shielding them from government interference, this metaphor has been employed for sixty years to support the idea that the public square should be walled off from any manifestation of religious sentiment or influence. Everson originated that doctrine, which has increasingly plagued the United States ever since.

In the 1960s, the Warren Court began employing the Everson precedent, with its separation of church and state, to begin secularizing American society. In 1962 and 1963 the Court declared school prayer and Bible reading unconstitutional. The 1960s also saw the Court strike down laws inhibiting the teaching of evolution, signal that many other changes regarding faith in public would be forthcoming, and in the 1968 case Flast v. Cohen made it much easier for unaffected citizens to bring lawsuits challenging religious acts and displays.

That trend continued through the Burger Court and Rehnquist Court (although it should be clearly noted that Chief Justice William Rehnquist consistently voted to reverse this trend). Among other things, in the 1970s the Court promulgated the anti-religious Lemon test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which continually evolves into new forms as the Court's membership changes, and which conservative justices attempt to overrule at every opportunity. Under Lemon, government acts are illegal if they lack a predominantly-secular purpose, advance or inhibit religion, or excessively entangle government with religion.

The Lemon test has continued to dog people of faith since then. In the 1980s, the Court barred the showing of the Ten Commandments in schools. It then barred moments of silence in schools, nativity scenes in government buildings, and certain religious symbols on government land. In the 1990s, it outlawed prayers at school graduation ceremonies, and in 2000 expanded that ban to forbid even voluntary, student-led prayer at Friday night football games.

From 1989 until the present, the dominant test for Establishment Clause lawsuits has been the endorsement test. Under that test--which is one of the many variations of the Lemon test--a government act touching upon faith or religion is unconstitutional if it gives the appearance of a government endorsement. The reason this test has dominated for so long is because it was the test used by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and in her role for those years as the swing vote on the Court (meaning her vote was often the fifth vote in 5-4 splits), she had the power to determine the test used by the Court. Many traditional religious displays were struck down during these years because they ran afoul of this defective test, as it is not difficult to mislabel many faith-based displays or expressions as "endorsements."

IV. Hope for a Significant Shift from the Roberts Court

That test will now likely shift in the Roberts Court. The Roberts Court has not yet taken up a major Establishment Clause issue, though history dictates that such a case will arrive soon enough. But now that Justice Samuel Alito has replaced Justice O'Connor, the swing vote on the Court (and the sole moderate jurist) is Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy has always dissented from the endorsement test, writing instead that the proper test is the coercion test (another variation of Lemon), under which government actions touching upon faith are unconstitutional if those present feel coerced to participate or support it. Although still problematic, Justice Kennedy's test is much friendlier to people of faith in every setting but one (that one being public schools when children are present).

In such a regime, situations such as the travesty unfolding in Florida referenced at the outset should be unthinkable. Activities involving prayer outside of a public school setting have always received special protection by the Court. Indeed, in the 1983 case Marsh v. Chambers the Court even set forth a special rule to protect legislative prayer (which is public prayer offered in governmental meetings or events), holding that the Lemon test does not apply and that instead such public prayers are constitutional so long as they are not used to proselytize the prayer-giver's faith or disparage other faiths.

The fact that this Florida situation exists is a testament to how hostile our law has become to expressions of faith, and that our society is now willing to countenance such antipathy. The radical secularization initiated by the Warren Court is bearing fruit, as for the first time those who entered elementary schools after the Court had sanitized those schools of Judeo-Christian references and moral absolutism are now mature adults in positions of power to act upon what their earlier experiences taught them was normal. Many millions of Americans now expect and demand that they not be exposed to any sort of religious expression in public, creating tension with many millions of other Americans who observe and value the United States' moral and religious heritage.

Effective restoration of the proper place of faith and religion in our society will require remediation of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Although much should change for the better with Justice Alito taking Justice O'Connor's seat, Establishment Clause cases will not result in outcomes consonant with our Founding Fathers' design for religious liberty and moral instruction to produce a virtuous citizenry until Lemon v. Kurtzman is overruled by a rule that benevolently accommodates expressions of faith and does not interfere with religious thoughts or institutions.

Only then will expressions of faith in the divine, along with predicate concepts of absolute truth, personal accountability and transcendent reality, and consequent concepts of virtue and morality, be able to again exercise a formative (and reformative) influence on American society. Only then will people of faith--especially adherents of the various denominations of Christianity that still propound normative behavior derived from moral principles decreed by a transcendent deity who has revealed himself to humanity--again enjoy the liberty originally enshrined in the Constitution.

With each passing day, more young Americans are developing firm convictions regarding the profound questions of life, including those pertaining to morality and normative behavior. A cultural decline affecting all of our institutions, including even the institution of marriage, is advancing in contemporary American society. This insidious trend is manifesting in our children in alarming ways, to the detriment of our foundational social structures. People of faith must restore proper constitutional safeguards for religion, to fully engage in this cultural conflict and regain the high ground in our public discourse.



Inhofe: Cap-and-Trade Largest Tax Increase in U.S. History

http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=46744752001

http://www.fairtaxsowega.com/inhofe-cap-and-trade-largest-tax-increase-in-u-s-history

By: Jim Meyers

Sen. James Inhofe tells Newsmax that the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats support would amount to “the largest tax increase in the history of America” ? and won’t accomplish anything.

The Oklahoma Republican also he would be “shocked” if the bill has enough votes to pass the Senate.

The bill, which the House passed, requires a 17 percent reduction of greenhouse gases ? mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels such as coal ? by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, and about an 80 percent reduction by mid-century. It would also allow polluters to buy and sell emission allowances as a way to ease the cost of compliance.

See Video: Sen. James Inhofe talks about the dangers of cap-and-trade to the American economy – Click Here Now

Inhofe is the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is holding several meetings this week.

Special: Get Sarah Palin?s New Book ? Incredible FREE Offer — Click Here Now.

Inhofe told Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella that the meetings are addressing the cap-and-trade bill that “Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are trying to get to the floor of the Senate and get considered at some point.

“Here’s the problem they have: The public has drifted away from their side. I can remember when 70 percent of the people in America thought that anthropogenic gas and CO2 were causing global warming. That’s not true anymore.

“If people go to my Web site, inhofe.senate.gov, and look it up, [they will see that] I’ve given many speeches on the Senate floor talking about, documenting, literally hundreds of scientists who are on the other side of this issue and are now saying, wait a minute, this isn’t true.”

Inhofe said the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and the most recent warming period “ended nine years ago, so we’ve been in another period since that time. Consequently they’re losing the [support of] science rapidly.

“As for the economics, people know this would be the largest tax increase in the history of America, and you don’t accomplish anything with it.”

Inhofe disclosed that he recently asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson whether the cap-and-trade bill would actually result in a reduction in C02 emissions, and she said it wouldn’t.

“The reason it wouldn’t is that it doesn’t matter what we do in America ? if we drive our manufacturing base off to places like China, India, and Mexico, places where they don’t have any emissions standards or restrictions, then it’s going to have the effect of increasing and not deceasing CO2.”

Nevertheless, Inhofe added, “There is a level of desperation” in the Democrats’ efforts to push through the bill.

Martella asked whether manmade greenhouse gas emissions are in fact the biggest culprit in climate change, as supporters of cap-and-trade maintain.

“They’re trying to say that, but with every day that goes by, science is no longer their friend,” Inhofe said. “We in fact know that is not true.

“Stop and think about this: If we were to have heavy restrictions in the United States, as are called for in the cap-and-trade bill that’s offered by John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, that would be a tax increase of between $350 and $400 billion a year.

“That would mean for anyone who is watching or listening to you and me right now, it would cost them about $2,000. I say about because in Oklahoma and Texas it’s a lot more than that. It’s closer to $3,000.

“Now why would you pass a tax increase that size if it doesn’t have any benefits, even if you believe that manmade gases cause global warming? It’s totally unreasonable.”

Inhofe told Martella that a recent report indicated the U.S. is “the number one provider of what you have to call recoverable assets. Our problem is that we’re not developing our own resources.

“Now we know that we have the largest reserves of oil and gas and coal in the world, and yet politically, the Democrats will not allow us to drill. They have a moratorium on drilling offshore. They won’t allow us to develop our own resources.”

Martella noted that the climate change bill was written by two of the most liberal members of Congress, Boxer and Kerry, and asked whether any moderate Democrats would oppose the bill along with the Republicans.

“Absolutely, There’s quite a few of them,” Inhofe responded.

The bill passed the House with 219 votes, “barely a majority,” he said, just as a similar bill in the 1990s did. That bill, he pointed out, “didn?t even come close in the Senate.

“In the Senate they’d have to have 60 votes, and quite frankly, right now I’d be shocked if they have 30 votes in favor of this huge tax increase.”

That is not only far short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster, it is also short of the 51 votes needed for a majority in the Senate.

Inhofe added: “They don’t have the votes, and they’re hysterical.”



Stupak: Take Abortion Out of Obamacare Bill

By: Dan Weil

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stupak_/2009/10/28/278324.html?s=al&promo_code=8FA7-1

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., threatened to work with Republicans to reject healthcare reform, unless House leaders allow a floor vote on a measure to remove abortion rules from the bill.

The issue is whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage for abortions.

Stupak’s amendment would ban taxpayer funds from being used for abortions.

“This has been federal law since 1976,” Stupak said in an interview with C-Span. He pointed out that President Obama has said he won’t allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.

“We have to have a vote,” Stupak said. “I don’t know why we have to change that basic principle in our law.”

He said Democratic leaders aren’t pleased with his stance. “The speaker (Nancy Pelosi) is not happy with me,” Stupak said.

He said he has been working with Democratic leaders on a compromise, but they haven't reached agreement.

Stupak has no plans to retreat. “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.”

Stupak said he has support from about 40 Democrats who will vote against healthcare reform unless the bill’s abortion language is changed. That would be enough to sink the bill if every Republican representative votes against it.

Meanwhile in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s insistence on putting a public option in the bill brought to the floor is facing increasing opposition.

Independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said he will probably vote against the measure if it includes a public option, and other moderates are undecided.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., told The Washington Post, "I'm skeptical about what Senator Reid has proposed." She opposes a public option but said she will "stay open to a principled compromise."



ObamAmerica: Reign of the Czars

by Lurita Doan

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/28/obamamerica-reign-of-the-czars/

President Obama’s decision to appoint so many czars is clearly troubling members of Congress, who have taken the unusual step of holding hearings on the issue. The decision of the two Senate committees is remarkable because a President’s management style is rarely questioned by the Senate or House during the first year of his term, especially when they are all members of the same political party. But, Obama’s decision to appoint almost 40 policy czars, and then give them broad powers and budgetary responsibilities, has created a more serious constitutional issue.

The Senate is primarily concerned that President Obama may be end-running the Constitution, along with the growing fear, shared by many citizens, that the power and the extraordinary amount of funding that is controlled by the Czars may be undermining the authorities of the senate-confirmed agency heads on whom the Senate has placed its imprimatur and its trust.

Czars currently influence or directly control over a trillion dollars of government spending, which is more than the spending of the entire federal government during the Reagan Administration. And, yet, few of the Obama czars were ever vetted through the traditional review process where potential conflicts of interest are revealed. Nor are Obama’s czars accountable to the Senate to justify policy or spending decisions.

In addition, three issues concerning czars continue to perplex:

Do the non-Senate-confirmed Czars undergo the same vetting process as other political appointee, such as background checks by the FBI, White House and Ethics Office review of Standard Form 278—financials and potential conflict of interest statements, to name just a few?
Has the President clearly outlined the duties and objectives of the Czars in relation to the Senate-Confirmed cabinet members who, currently, appear to share similar job objectives and responsibilities?
Will the White House permit Czars to testify to Congress, or will the White House exert Executive Privilege, thereby circumventing Congress’ statutory role of Advice and Consent?
So far, the answers to these questions doesn’t look promising. The circumstances surrounding the resignation of Van Jones, the Green Jobs czar, highlighted the disturbing fact that, at least in the case of Jones, the traditional political appointee vetting process was not followed, and that, indeed, he may not have completed all of the requisite paperwork before commencing employment with the government.

The clarification of czar and czarina duties and responsibilities is now an urgent requirement by the Senate because Obama’s many Czars are very powerful. For example, Ken Feinberg, the Pay Czar, has just cut the salaries and bonuses by 90% of some of Wall Street CEOs and senior staff whose companies received bailout funds. One can debate the wisdom and potential long-term negative consequences of the government’s heavy hand, but the inappropriateness of a czar making a such a critical decision seems clear.

As a czar, Feinberg is immune to oversight and accountability. He is, arguably, one of the most powerful men in America since he seems to have the ability to decide how much people should be paid. Are any of us comfortable with a pay czar with the powers and ability to arbitrarily set pay and bonus levels for bankers and senior staff? Would we not be better served if our normal governmental checks and balances were in effect?

There are also potential unintended consequences of Feinberg’s actions. A few days ago, President Obama promised to put more money into small and regional banks to kick start small business lending. Feinberg has set a precedent for governmental interference in pay negotiations. There is a possibility that few of those banks are likely to accept government TARP money, since with it comes the implicit authority of the pay czar to set compensation levels for bank employees. The result is that small businesses may not see any improved lending any time soon.

In a similar manner, Carol Browner, the Energy and Environmental Czar recently assumed broad powers to dictate automotive manufacturing emissions standards. Curiously, the Administrator of the EPA, who is a member of the President’s Cabinet appears to defer to Ms. Browner. And yet, the Senate has not vetted or confirmed Carol Browner, nor are they able to hold the EPA responsible for decisions and actions taken by a policy czar.

The White House has already provided an indication of their intent regarding future congressional testimonies by czars. Recently, Senator Feingold invited the White House to attend, and to testify, at the hearing he hosted on czars and the Constitution. The White House declined to attend.

To be fair, Czars, both senate-confirmed and those otherwise appointed, seem to be a mixed bag under the Obama Administration. Some seem to have exemplary credentials, solid expertise that can certainly provide additional advice to President Obama if he does not feel his Cabinet members provide sufficient counsel. Others are so clearly unsuited for their positions that they are an embarrassment.

Past Presidents have appointed czars to lead special efforts, and all Presidents deserve to have the assistance of the experts that they believe will help them do the best job for the American people. But, President Obama has taken this past practice to dizzy, new extremes, and concerns grow that he has created a de facto shadow government.

The 15 Senate-confirmed Cabinet members are overshadowed and outnumbered by the Czars, whose decisions seem to reign supreme on policy issues. The potential for disruptive White House turf wars and feuding grows, as each czar adds yet another layer of management between the Cabinet Member and the President.

American taxpayers are questioning the broad powers of the czars. The Senate is too. The Senate may be controlled by members of the President’s own political party, but there are limits to just how much power and financial control they will blindly seed to the President. Even if that President is named Obama.



EXCLUSIVE: Democratic donors rewarded with W.H. perks

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/28/democratic-donors-rewarded-with-wh-perks/?feat=home_cube_position1

Offered access to bowling alley, movie theaterhearing nixed

By Matthew Mosk

During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.

• TWT INTERACTIVE: "Bowling for dollars at the White House"

One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.

Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president's Martha's Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick's Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.

RELATED STORIES:
• Obama campaign biopic already dated
• Tainted donations vex political campaigns
• Campaign-giving restriction is nullified
• Justices hit campaign fund curb
• Obama, GOP hopefuls hunt cash, friends

Presidential aides said there has been no systematic effort to use the White House complex to aid fundraising, though they acknowledge the DNC has paid for some events at the presidential mansion.

Many guests at the White House not only had fundraising connections, but also have personal friendships with the president, Mr. Obama's aides said.

"Contributing does not guarantee a ticket to the White House, nor does it prohibit the contributor from visiting," said Dan Pfeiffer, deputy White House communications director.

• See White House response to story: White House touts ethics in rewards for fundraisers



"The e-mail Bag"

Obama Jokes

Q: What's the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?
A: His followers don't think they're funny and everyone else doesn't think they're jokes.

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?
A: It stands between him and the First.

Q: What's the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?
A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

Q: What's the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama?
A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth.

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One's full of tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for prisoners.

Q: What's the difference between a large pizza and the typical Obama backer?
A: The pizza can feed a family of four.

Q: What's the difference between a zoo and the White House?
A: A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin' African.

Q: If Pelosi and Obama were in a boat and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America!

Q: What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal congress?
A: An Obama-nation.

Q: What's the difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler wrote his own book.

Q: What's another difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Q: Why doesn't Obama pray?
A: It's impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.