ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091217

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can accomplish what others can't. -- Jerry Rice

"The only thing worse than not reading a book in the last ninety days is - not reading a book in the last ninety days and think that it doesn't matter." -- Jim Rohn



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

He delights in every detail of their lives. (Psalm 37:23)

Do you ever feel that your parents do not listen to you, your boss does not respect you, or that your co-workers in the church, even the pastor, do not understand you? How devastating to realize that almost no one knows what you are like inside or the dreams you dream. Take heart. Remember that God knows how we are formed. As our Creator, He custom-designed us for a unique purpose.

David declared that the steps of a godly person are directed by the Lord (Psalm 37:23). That means that He will guide us as we live our lives for Him. God even "understands how weak we are; He knows we are only dust" (Psalm 103:14).

This assurance was evident in the experience of a pastor of a small church. He became so discouraged that he was ready to give up the ministry. A friend invited him to a prayer summit of pastors. When he got there, he confessed to his group, "I've been so defeated that I don't even think God knows where I am."

But God did know where he was. The next day, the other pastors stood in a circle around him and prayed for him, and he had such an overpowering sense of God's presence that he went home walking on air. God knew exactly what this pastor needed to be renewed in his heart and mind. He will help each of us in similar ways because He designed us and knows exactly what we need at every moment.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Do you sometimes feel as though God does not know where you are, what you are facing, or even who you are? Read and meditate on God's Word. God will meet you there and give you assurance, and peace.



"The Patriot Post"

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." -- Samuel Adams

"A thoughtful mind, when it sees a Nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the Nation which belongs to the Nation that sets it forth." -- Henry Ward Beecher



God Bless America

By Irving Berlin,

"God bless America, land that I love,
Stand beside her, and guide her,
Through the night, with the light from above,
From the mountains, to the prairies
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, my home sweet home,
God bless America! My Home Sweet Home!"



The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

Elias Boudinot

PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT

Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18

A letter to his daughter:

You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature – the absolute necessity of a change of heart and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ – of salvation through His meritorious righteousness only – and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]. You are well acquainted that the most perfect and consummate doctrinal knowledge is of no avail without it operates on and sincerely affects the heart, changes the practice, and totally influences the will – and that without the almighty power of the Spirit of God enlightening your mind, subduing your will, and continually drawing you to Himself, you can do nothing. . . . And may the God of your parents (for many generations past) seal instruction to your soul and lead you to Himself through the blood of His too greatly despised Son, Who notwithstanding, is still reclaiming the world to God through that blood, not imputing to them their sins. To Him be glory forever!19

For nearly half a century have I anxiously and critically studied that invaluable treasure [the Bible]; and I still scarcely ever take it up that I do not find something new – that I do not receive some valuable addition to my stock of knowledge or perceive some instructive fact never observed before. In short, were you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive both to the wise and ignorant. Were you to ask me for one affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible; and should you renew the inquiry for the best philosophy or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge.20

Endnotes

18. Elias Boudinot, The Life, Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, pp. 19, 21, speech in the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.

19. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Susan, on October 30, 1782; see also Letters of the Delegates to Congress: 1774-1789, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1992), Vol. XIX, p. 325, from a letter of Elias Boudinot to his daughter, Susan Boudinot, on October 30, 1782; see also, Elias Boudinot, The Life Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1896), Vol. I, p. 260-262.

20. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation, or the Age of Reason Shewn to be An Age of Infidelity (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), p. xv, from his “Dedication: Letter to his daughter Susan Bradford.”



"Mr. Positive!"

Jim Rohn Tribute

http://video.success.com/featured/jim-rohn-tribute/

"The Web"

Source: Dems Threaten Nelson In Pursuit of 60

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/source_dems_threaten_nelson_in_1.asp

While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson's demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a "naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson's vote." They are "threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?" asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on December 15, 2009 12:41 PM | Permalink



Global Warming

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/78488007.html

It will take a few minutes to listen to the 4 scientists on this website, but well worth it. It certainly puts a big damper on the global warming hysteria. Thank you, Jerry P.......

HERE ARE FOUR VIDEOS.

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477122.html?video=pop&t=a

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477177.html?video=pop&t=a

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477312.html?video=pop&t=a

The first is by John Coleman who is the founder of the weather channel. The other three are very qualified to give their views and it would be in your interest to watch each video. They are very short and to the point. John Coleman's explanation makes it so simple to follow what has been happening with the Global Warming issue. All of this is devastating to the “GLOBAL WARMING FOLKS” and their “MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY”!!!!

In total, it looks like Al Gore, who has never studied the atmosphere or weather, must indeed, return his undeserved awards.



When the UN's involved: Follow the Money

Clarice Feldman

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/when_the_uns_involved_follow_t.html

And if you follow the money on the Copenhagen conference it leads right to the pockets of the head of the chairman of tne U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As World Net Daily correctly reports:

NEW YORK - A story emerging out of Britain suggests "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis. A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs. The Tata Group headquartered in Mumbai anticipates receiving windfall profits of up to nearly $2 billion from closing the Corus Redcar steelmaking plant in Britain, with about half of the savings expected to result from cashing in on carbon credits granted the steelmaker by the European Union under the EU's emissions trading scheme, or ETS.



Christianity IS a Religion

by Eric Rauch, Dec 03, 2009

http://www.americanvision.org/article/christianity-is-a-religion/

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:16-17).

There is a certain church that I pass on my way home from work every day. Like most churches, this church has a sign out by the road. I have already expressed my extreme frustration with church signs elsewhere, so it should come as no surprise that I am always keeping my eyes open for the latest and greatest "saying" adorning local signs. The particular church has had this message up for the last several weeks: "Christianity is not a religion." Below this, the sign instructs readers to read John 3:16-17 to find out why.

Being quite familiar with John 3:16-17, I was a bit puzzled as to why these two verses from the Gospel of John prove that Christianity is not a religion. While I am certainly aware of what the church is trying to say with its sign-message (viz., Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with Jesus), I am confused as to how John 3:16-17 proves its point. If anything, these verses reinforce the fact that Christianity IS a religion. Christianity cannot be proven empirically, i.e. by using the scientific method or our five senses. When Thomas claimed that he would not believe that Jesus actually rose from the grave unless he could see and feel where the crucifixion nails had been (John 20:24-29), he was making an empirical demand. Thomas wanted proof that Jesus was alive; the testimony of the other disciples was not enough for him. When Jesus appears and grants Thomas his empirical proof, Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God." Jesus' response is as chilling as it is brief: "Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed."

Earlier in his Gospel, John tells of a similar event transpiring between Jesus and Nathanael. Having already become a follower of Jesus, Philip goes to Nathanael and tells him that he has found the Messiah—"Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote" (John 1:45). Nathanael is skeptical so Philip invites him to "come and see." When Jesus tells Nathanael that He saw him "under the fig tree," before Philip called him, Nathanael believes and exclaims: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." In much the same way as He responded to Thomas, Jesus answers: "Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these" (John 1:50). Thomas and Nathanael both "saw and believed," but Jesus questions each man's empirically-based belief. While our modern society tells us that "seeing is believing," Jesus tells us that "believing is seeing." He chides both Nathanael and Thomas for having such a shallow view of believing; one believes because Jesus tells him that he was under a tree and the other because he was able to touch Jesus' nail-scarred hands. Jesus knows that belief that is so easily attained is also easily lost. He warns Nathanael and Thomas that a faith of seeing—of empirical verification—is really not a faith at all and can easily miss the greater blessing that awaits them.

In the book Exploring Theology, Robert Morgan writes this:

The body of evidence for the truth of Christianity is staggering, and I believe the truth of Christianity can be established to a 99 percent level of certainty. The remaining 1 percent is the step of faith you take when you "confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9). [1]

Morgan's view of faith is pretty standard in modern evangelicalism. Most Protestant Christians would agree with Morgan's "99 percent level of certainty," although I would guess that most wouldn't put it quite that high—maybe more of a 75-80 percent level. In fact, my estimate is probably too generous. A 2008 Pew study revealed that 47% of evangelicals believe that other religions can lead to eternal life. This is down (in a good way) from 57% in 2002. [2] According to this study, nearly half of American evangelicals are not entirely convinced (or even 99% certain) that Christianity is true in all of its claims and doctrines.

The problem that lies behind Morgan's 99 percent level of certainty and the church sign's proclamation that "Christianity is not a religion," is a misunderstanding of what constitutes "religion." Most people have an idea that religion only deals with the things of God. R.C. Sproul defines the belief of most when he writes:

Intellectual assent involves the assurance or conviction that a certain proposition is true. When we say that we believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States, we mean that we affirm the truth of that proposition. This is not faith of a religious sort, but it is integral to a person's belief-system concerning real states of affairs. [3]

Sproul makes the claim that believing that George Washington was the first president is not a religious belief. In other words, Sproul is making the point that believing the historical fact that Washington was the first president is not the same as believing the historical fact that Jesus is the Messiah. One is a historical "proposition," while the other is a "religious" commitment. Sproul seems to believe, like most evangelicals, that because believing that George Washington was the first president has no bearing on your eternal destiny, it does not fall into the realm of "religion." But this is somewhat misleading. While it is true that mere intellectual assent to the historical fact of Jesus being the Messiah doesn't make one a Christian (after all, even the demons believe; James 2:18-19), believing that Jesus is the Messiah is just as much a faith commitment as believing that Washington was the first president. Both involve believing something to be true that we can't directly experience or verify to be true. The fact that most people believe that George Washington was the first president doesn't make it true, any more than most people disbelieving that Jesus is the Messiah makes it false. Truth is not determined by a majority vote; even if the majority is 99 percent.

Religion does not only deal with where you will spend eternity. Every person on the planet has a religion (in fact several of them), whether they realize it or not. When a woman makes a decision to have an abortion because she believes that it is only a "clump of cells," she is making a religious decision. When a man chooses to euthanize his aging and decrepit father because of his low "quality of life," he is making a religious decision. When two parents decide to work longer hours and make more money to put their child through college, they are making a religious decision. Any time we act on our beliefs—e.g., fetuses are not babies, quality over quantity of life, better education means a better job, etc.—we are acting out of religious (i.e. spiritual, not empirical) convictions, even if those beliefs have been shown to be 99 percent capable of predicting future events (which begs the question of cause and effect, but we'll save that for another day!).

What do we mean by the word 'religion'? It is "the binding tendency in every man to dedicate himself with his whole heart to the true God or an idol," according to F. Nigel Lee. In this sense all men are religious because no man can escape being a man in the image of God created to worship and serve God, rebellious and unregenerate though he be. Romans 1:25 says, "For they [mankind] exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." Man is inescapably religious. [4]

In other words, to make the claim that Christianity is not a religion flies in the face of Romans 1 (and other passages), where the Bible makes the point that God is to believed for the sole reason that He is God. Yes, Christianity is a relationship, I am not denying that. But as Brian pointed out yesterday, relationships fail all the time because people go into them with false expectations. Saying that Christianity is a relationship doesn't magically take it out of the "religious" realm. The Bible is filled with individuals who desired a relationship with God, but wanted it on their own terms. They had one idea of what a relationship with the Holy God would mean, but God had another. Like the rich young ruler, these people "go away grieving" (Matthew 19:16-26).

Paul writes that unregenerate men exchange the "invisible" truth of God for something that is visible: the creation. They worship the creation, rather than the Creator. Man is not to judge God by the things He has made, they are to submit and believe His truth because of what He has made. "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). When the claim is made that Christianity is not a religion, what is really being said is that Christianity is "provable" in some sense. Abraham's answer to the rich man in Luke 16 puts this idea to rest fairly quickly: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

Although Robert Morgan is free to make the assessment that the truth of Christianity can be established to a 99% level of certainty, what he is really saying is that he is personally 99% certain of the truth of Christianity. Even if it were possible to convince the world of the 99%, we would still be faced with that pesky 1% that requires faith. In fact, it is the 1% that makes the other 99% relevant. Proverbs 1:7 states emphatically: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." That is, we cannot know anything truly without first believing. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). "Only one of the world's religions is TRUE and from God, and that is the religion of Christianity, founded on the Spirit-inspired writings of the apostles and prophets in the Bible." [5]

All truth—"true truth" as Francis Schaeffer called it—originates with the God of Truth, He who is the Definer of reality, He who calls light out of darkness and apart from Whom nothing was made (John 1:1-5). Apart from this God of truth, we can do nothing (John 15:5), and this includes determining something to be either 99% true or 99% false. John the Baptist stated it simply enough: "A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven" (John 3:27). Or as Saint Anselm put it in the 11th century: "I do not seek to understand in order to believe, rather I believe in order to understand." The religion of Christianity precedes the relationship with Christ, just as marriage vows precede the marriage.



Obama's Words and Deeds Reveal His Naive Foreign Policy

By Charlie Daniels

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/charlie-daniels/2009/12/11/obamas-words-deeds-reveal-his-naive-foreign-policy

There is one thing I very much want everyone who reads this to understand. Although I vehemently disagree with just about everything Barack Obama has done since he has been in office, and I really believe that he's digging a fiscal hole that this nation will be generations, if ever, digging out of, although I believe him to be a total socialist and just hate it when I have seen him bow to royalty around the world, I will write this piece with as much impartiality as I can, so that it will not be about the man or anything he has done in the past, but rather about the defense of this nation.

First of all, trying terrorists in America is nothing more than gross arrogance by our President and Attorney General.

The repercussions of a terrorist trial in New York could be so catastrophic that you don't even want to think about it.

The people we are dealing with have no conscience at all. To see what kind of people they are, just look back a few years ago at what happened in Russia when the Russian government was holding Chechen terrorists in prison.

Other Chechen terrorists took over a school and held the children hostages trying to obtain the release of terrorists that the government was holding. They chose a middle school and not by accident. It was because the boys were big enough to do physical labor and the girls were old enough to rape.

They forced the boys to help barricade the building stacking furniture against the walls and raped the girls and women teachers and then proceeded to murder them.

These are the kind of people we are dealing with, and Obama wants to bring this clear and present danger into New York City.

Total insanity.

If there is a gonad left in congress they will put a stop to this, Democrat, Republican, whatever and especially the Congressmen and Senators from New York should be fighting tooth and nail to put an end to this travesty and they have the power to do it, by law.

If they don't, they share the blame with whatever happens.

Secondly, the President's speech Tuesday night was an exercise in futility.

He might as well have gone ahead and told the world that he was not committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, that he had no resolve and that he was sending three quarters of the troops General McChrystal asked for, he was going to remove them after eighteen months and that was that.

This has been the problem with every president we've had in the last half-century with the exception of Ronald Reagan, there is no commitment to winning the war. They use words like "containment" and "exit strategy."

If we don't intend to fully winning a war, we should never send one soldier anywhere. Our enemies know that Obama has no designs on winning in Afghanistan. He's just playing politics; playing both sides against the middle.

Why even send the troops?

I say, Mr. President, why don't you just bring them all home starting today? Because all al-Qaeda and the Taliban are going to do is wait you out and after the troops leave they'll move right back in and take over, so why risk even one more American life.

And while we're at it, why don't you just bring all of our troops home from all over the world? You're not going to let them win, so why put them in harm's way?

The men and women who lay their lives on the line every day deserve respect, and what do they get?

Three Navy Seals are being put on trial for punching a murdering S.O.B. in the gut.

We have a President who has surrounded himself with arrogant snobs who know as much about fighting a war as a hog knows about an airplane, an Attorney General who treats the terrorist scum they've risked their lives to capture like citizens of this country. As Commander in Chief, he seems more interested in trying to avoid hurting some Muslim's feelings than he is in supporting the efforts of those he is commanding.

To say this President is in way over his head is a gross understatement and Tuesday night let the rest of the world know it.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

—Charlie Daniels is an award-winning country musician. His latest album is "Joy to the World, a Bluegrass Christmas with Charlie Daniels & Friends."



Bolton slams U.N.'s 'adverse press' crackdown

Global organization creating 'credibility problem' with decisions

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118247

By Stewart Stogel
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

United Nations headquarters in New York

UNITED NATIONS – The United
United Nations headquarters in New York

UNITED NATIONS – The United Nations' refusal to allow a WorldNetDaily senior staff writer access to the Copenhagen summit on climate change that started this week is but the latest in a series of clashes between the world organization and media.

The standoff between the U.N.'s Department of Public Information and WND publisher Joseph Farah continues, but Farah confirmed a senior U.N. official has offered to meet with him to "discuss" a "future" relationship.

Ahmad Fawzi, director of the news and media division, told WND the accreditation process in Copenhagen was conducted by a separate U.N. group based in Denmark. He said that with the avalanche of press-credential requests – more than 5,000 – some "may have fallen through the cracks," though it was unclear if that included the WND request.

Farah explained:

"I have always been very concerned about the United Nations' commitment to freedom of the press. America's founders recognized it as an inherent, unalienable right. I am afraid others around the world do not see it the same way they did and the way Americans still do," he said.

As WND reported, the media coordinator for the Copenhagen summit refused permission for WND to send two-time New York Times No. 1 best-selling author Jerome Corsi to cover the event.

Axel Wuestenhagen later confirmed verbally to WND that the decision would not be changed.

"Everything we had to say was said in the [e-mail] text," Axel Wuestenhagen, reached on his cell phone as he was preparing for the event, told WND. "I'm not commenting on the text. That was the agreement reached. … I think I'll have to stick to that."

Wuestenhagen initially said the request was delayed because of a flood of applications. He later explained to WND's legal counsel, Gary Kreep, that WND, "as a for-profit subsidiary of the nonprofit Western Journalism Center," did not qualify.

Join in the effort to hold organizations such as the U.N. accountable for their practices regarding coverage, through WND's Legal Defense Fund.

But Farah, the founder of both the Western Journalism Center and WND, responded immediately with the information that, "WorldNetDaily is NOT, as you mistakenly assert, a for-profit subsidiary of the Western Journalism Center. Neither is it an advocacy organization, though, like all news organizations, it does publish a broad spectrum of opinion – we believe, in fact, the broadest ideological spectrum of any news organization in the world."

Even so, Wuestenhagen said his decision would not change.

Since Ban Ki-moon took office in January 2007, the U.N. has been questioning what actually constitutes a "legitimate" news organization, especially in the era of new media.

That gray area has been used several times recently to review the credentials of several news organizations.

It had also drawn the attention of the U.S. mission to the U.N.

Ric Grenell, former director of the mission's office of communications and former press secretary to four U.S. ambassadors, repeatedly has expressed concern that the U.N. has shown "a disposition" to periodically examine the bona fides of news organizations it has taken issue with.

During the Bush administration, concerns over the U.N.'s attitude towards the press drew criticism from several U.S./U.N. ambassadors, including John D. Negroponte, John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad.

Bolton told WND: "Over the years, there have been numerous complaints about U.N. efforts to prevent adverse press coverage. Every time it happens, such as denying access or credentials, the U.N. simply increases its credibility problem."

During the Clinton years, the U.N.'s confrontations with the press resulted in written complaints to then-chief Kofi Annan by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and U.S./U.N. Representative Bill Richardson.

So far, the Obama administration has remained silent on the latest U.N. controversy.

A brief review of the history of the U.N.'s relations with the press corps revealed several disturbing events.

In February 2008, Madonna teamed with the fashion house Gucci in an attempt to host a children's aid fundraiser on the U.N.'s North Lawn during the annual New York City "Fashion Week."

Madonna and Gucci enlisted the support of UNICEF chief Ann Veneman and the director of the U.N.'s media-relations department, Ahmad Fawzi, to get the project approved.

Eventually, Veneman and Fawzi gave Madonna the green light.

They not only approved the project but strangely conceded control of the entire event to the group. That meant the dispatching of armed U.N. security officers and control over everyone attending the affair.

Veteran correspondents tell WND they could not remember the U.N. ever surrendering control of a U.N. event to an outside entity.

Many U.N. journalists got bumped by the new Gucci-Madonna PR firm, KCD International, in favor of paparazzi friendly to the controversial pop singer.

The U.N. media accreditation department stood by and did little.

It became such a political hot potato that Secretary-General Ban, who insisted that Veneman and Fawzi acted without his authority, decided to boycott the event.

Later, Ban said he decided to let the event go forward because UNICEF stood to gain "more than $1.7 million" by letting Madonna throw her party.

However, the day after the event, the U.N. found itself saddled with a new problem. That's when New York state attorney general Andrew Cuomo announced an investigation targeting the fashion house Marc Jacobs and its PR firm, KCD International, for allegedly bribing officials to use a local state guard armory in Manhattan to present its clothes during Fashion Week.

Ann Veneman, Fawzi and the U.N.'s undersecretary-general for public information, Kiyo Akasaka, refused comment on the matter.

Since the event, KCD has never returned to U.N. headquarters.

In addition to the Madonna fiasco, the U.N. targeted two members of the new media for special attention in 2008.

In one instance, the U.N. gave the organization an eviction notice; in the other, it attacked the organization through Google.

Icastnews.com, an infant news website that has counted among its many guests Madeleine Albright, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, was told that its lease on studio space would be terminated in two weeks.

The U.N.'s Fawzi cited evidence that Icastnews founder S.J. Casella was using his U.N. credentials for personal commercial purposes.

Fawzi gave no prior warning to Casella and accepted the evidence at face value.

Only after an intervention by an attorney representing Casella, pressuring the U.N. to verify the charges of "profiteering," did Fawzi rescind the eviction order, privately admitting the information in his possession was eventually found to be erroneous.

But the conflict continued.

In a later instance, Casella was informed by U.N. security that a small, symbolic red carpet he traditionally placed in front of his studio to welcome visiting guests needed to be removed because it was a "safety" hazard.

Another well-known thorn in the side of U.N. officials is Mathew Lee, an attorney-turned-blogger on the website Innercitypress.com.

Lee, who has become a popular whistleblower, found his credentials challenged by the U.N. but through a back door.

In early 2008, the U.N. hosted an event that drew a visit by a high-ranking official of Google.

The Google official was Michael Jones, chief technology officer.

Several weeks later, Lee received an e-mail from Google informing him that his website no longer met the criteria for a news organization. As such, Innercitypress.com would be removed from its news search engine.

Once Google informed Lee of its decision, the U.N. then began efforts to remove him.

Lee publicized his dilemma with Foxnews.com and several public-advocacy groups on Capitol Hill.

Under growing public pressure, Google re-evaluated Innercitypress.com and eventually returned it to the news search engine after a brief hiatus.

The U.N. then quietly buried the move to oust Lee.

The Mathew Lee incident evoked memories of Google's assistance with Chinese officials when it revealed names of suspected dissidents to the Beijing government. Several arrests subsequently took place.

Google later apologized for that decision when subpoenaed to appear on Capitol Hill.

Grenell, the longest-serving spokesman in the history of the U.S./U.N. mission, told WND that he sees a trend at the U.N.

"First we see Obama attacking Fox News. Now we see the U.N. banning WND from Copenhagen. I, for one, would be very suspicious."

Read about the need for – and get involved in – WND's legal defense fund.

In a column, Farah noted WND's ordeal suggests bigger problems than just a news organization being kept out of one conference.

"If you had any questions about the status of the free press in the future global government, the answer has been delivered. There won't be any," he wrote. "Only government-approved press will have access to the deliberations of the unaccountable big brothers meeting in Copenhagen and future conclaves.

"How can you help?" he continued. "I seek your prayers and your contributions to WND's legal defense fund – now battling on multiple fronts for the First Amendment.

"We are getting a glimpse now of what it is like living in a totalitarian closed society that doesn't respect free-press rights – a society that in fact disdains the notion of a free press," he wrote. "The organizers of the Copenhagen U.N. climate summit tolerate only a faux press that willingly publishes preapproved propaganda disseminated by elitists interested only in solidifying their power."



U.K.: "Honor" crimes up 40% due to rising Christian fundamentalism -- no, wait...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/uk-honor-crimes-up-40-due-to-rising-christian-fundamentalism----no-wait.html

Predictably, the article avoids naming any particular religion as much as possible. So we're left to assume that some of this is the work of a militant wing of lapsed Quakers. "Honour crime up by 40% due to rising fundamentalism," by Rebecca Camber for the Daily Mail, December 7 (thanks to Kris):

Police have seen 'honour' crime surge by 40 per cent due to rising fundamentalism, new figures show.

Honour-based violence, including crimes like murder, rape and kidnap has rocketed in London during the past year.

Reported instances of intimidation and attempts at forced marriage have also increased by 60 per cent.

A report into the scale of the problem by Scotland Yard found there were 161 honour-based incidents recorded in 2007-8, of which 93 were criminal offences.
But in 2008/9 the number of incidents had risen to 256, with 132 being criminal offences.

The latest figures indicate that the trend is continuing, with 211 incidents reported in the last six months until October, of which 129 were offences - more than double the number in the same period last year.

Police define honour crimes as offences motivated by a desire to protect the honour of a family or community.

Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, said the group is now dealing with four times more complaints relating to honour than two years ago.
She said: 'More women are coming forward. They are becoming more aware of their rights in the UK, that there is help available and they feel confident enough to report matters to the police.

'But I also think cases and violence are increasing.

'One reason is the rise in fundamentalism. The problem is increasing in communities around the UK.

'We are seeing a rise not only in honour killings, but also in female genital mutilation and polygamy.'

There should not ever be a single case of female genital mutilation in Britain, of all places, or anywhere else in the West. Period. The same goes for honor killings, forced marriage, and polygamy. Unfortunately, policymakers seem to have taken the attitude of the Ford Motor Company around the time of the "Pinto memo": the path of least resistance is to let a few tragedies slip by.



How old is Grandpa?

http://www.howtofindyourroots.com/coffeebreak

Stay with this -- the answer is at the end. It will blow you away.

One evening a grandson was talking to his grandfather about current events. The grandson asked his grandfather what he thought about the shootings at schools, the computer age, and just things in general.

The Grandfather replied, "Well, let me think a minute, I was born before:

' television

' penicillin

' polio shots

' frozen foods

' Xerox

' contact lenses

' Frisbees and ' the pill

There were no:

' credit cards

' laser beams or ' ball-point pens

Man had not invented:

' pantyhose

' air conditioners

' dishwashers

' clothes dryers ' and the clothes were hung out to dry in the fresh air and ' man hadn't yet walked on the moon

Your Grandmother and I got married first, . . . and then lived together.

Every family had a father and a mother.

Until I was 25, I called every man older than me, "Sir".

And after I turned 25, I still called policemen and every man with a title, "Sir."

We were before gay-rights, computer- dating, dual careers, daycare centers, and group therapy.

Our lives were governed by the Ten Commandments, good judgment, and common sense.

We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions.

Serving your country was a privilege; living in this country was a bigger privilege.

We thought fast food was what people ate during Lent.

Having a meaningful relationship meant getting along with your cousins.

Draft dodgers were people who closed their front doors when the evening breeze started.

Time-sharing meant time the family spent together in the evenings and weekends-not purchasing condominiums.

We never heard of FM radios, tape decks, CDs, electric typewriters, yogurt, or guys wearing earrings.

We listened to the Big Bands, Jack Benny, and the President's speeches on our radios.

And I don't ever remember any kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey.

If you saw anything with 'Made in Japan ' on it, it was junk.

The term 'making out' referred to how you did on your school exam.

Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and instant coffee were unheard of.

We had 5 &10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents.

Ice-cream cones, phone calls, rides on a streetcar, and a Pepsi were all a nickel.

And if you didn't want to splurge, you could spend your nickel on enough stamps to mail 1 letter and 2 postcards.

You could buy a new Chevy Coupe for $600, . . . but who could afford one?

Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon.

In my day:

' "grass" was mowed,

' "coke" was a cold drink,

' "pot" was something your mother cooked in and

' "rock music" was your grandmother's lullaby.

' "Aids" were helpers in the Principal's office,

' " chip" meant a piece of wood,

' "hardware" was found in a hardware store and

' "software" wasn't even a word.

And we were the last generation to actually believe that a lady needed a husband to have a baby. No wonder people call us "old and confused" and say there is a generation gap... and how old do you think I am?

I bet you have this old man in mind...you are in for a shock!

Read on to see -- pretty scary if you think about it and pretty sad at
the same time.

This man would be only 59 years old



"The e-mail Bag"

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 is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners.


If Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it sank, who would be saved? .... America!