Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions


If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091223


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

"My Comments"


"Daily Motivations"

“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything” -- Pope Benedict XVI

Proactive people take the initiative and responsibility to make things happen. They cause action rather than being victims of circumstance. -- Chris MacAllister

"Many of the things you can count, don't count. Many of the things you can't count, really count." -- Albert Einstein

"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for the happiness of those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. (Luke 6:27-28)

An attorney came to me with that familiar problem: a business partner he could not tolerate. The two men actually hated each other, criticizing and demeaning one another at every opportunity. Rather than speaking of God's desires for that relationship, each man focused only on the unlovable traits of the other.

I reminded my friend, a new believer, that God's Word commands us to love our enemies. I further suggested that he go to that other man, tell him he loved him, and ask his forgiveness for the way he had treated him. The attorney's eyes grew wide. "I could never love him," he said.

But in the end, he went in faith, confessed his lack of love for his partner, and asked for forgiveness. The partner was astounded. Nobody had ever come to him with such an attitude. He wanted to know how he could experience the kind of life my attorney friend had.

My friend led him to Christ, and they both came to share with me the miracle that God had performed in their lives. As a result, God created a deep and satisfying friendship between the two men. They began to experience God's supernatural love individually and as a true partnership.

We are saved through faith, by God's grace. We live by faith. We serve by faith. And we love by faith. You will be surprised and delighted to see what God will do in you when you choose to love people by an act of faith.

Your View of God Really Matters …

This very moment, think of that person who seems so difficult to love. Ask God to help you see that person as He sees him or her. Then step out in faith and take action, based on the right relationship you have claimed in the name and the truth of God.

"The Patriot Post"

"Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capacity, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence." -- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sen. Ben Nelson -- the lonely 60th vote


"[Barack] Obama paid off Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) the way he and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) had paid off Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) last month. Put enough money on the table and just about any Democratic U.S. Senator will think, gulp, blink, and drag the pot with the rationalization that 'this is all for the greater good.' Pelican Pellets. This is no different than putting a horse's head into Jack Woltz' bed to force him into giving Johnny Fontaine a part in his movie in The Godfather. It was a deal Nelson couldn't refuse. There is no Socialized Option in the bill. Abortions will not be covered. It is unclear who will have to pay how much or when for what coverage. All in all it is health care reform that has nothing to do with health care and contains little, if any, reform. Other than this: If Democrats continue to control all the levers of power at the Federal level, this will change and change and change over the next two or three Congresses until health care in America is pronounced equal for everyone and mediocre for all." -- political analyst Rich Galen


"A Fatal Tendency of Mankind. Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. ... This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man -- in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain." -- French economist and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)


"As we near the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn? America doesn't need to turn the page on culture wars, such as the one on abortion. It needs to reopen the pages of its history to our Founders' elevated views of and rights for all human beings (including those in the womb), as documented in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We need to revive and re-instill their value of humanity back into society, our children and our children's children. And most of all, Washington needs to run our government as Thomas Jefferson outlined in an 1809 letter: 'The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.'" -- columnist Chuck Norris

Faith & Family

"The New York Times recently revealed that, before abandoning the idea, Barack and Michelle Obama had considered eliminating The White House's traditional nativity scene as part of an effort to celebrate a 'non-religious' Christmas. In light of that story, it wasn't entirely surprising to learn that this year, for the first time, the President's Christmas card contains neither any mention of Christmas itself nor a quote from the New Testament. Obviously, the Obamas aren't fans of overt displays of Christian religiosity. The White House has told Fox News Radio that the card represents nothing but an attempt to recognize that Americans are celebrating other holidays at this time of year -- not just Christmas. No doubt that approach is imbued with politically-correct, multicultural sensitivity, but it also, perhaps, reflects a world view that's out-of-step with most regular Americans -- and even America's heritage. For starters, the use of the term 'Christmas' doesn't seem to be as offensive as the politically correct would have us believe. A recent Rasmussen Report found that fully 72% of Americans preferred 'Merry Christmas,' compared to 22% who favored a more generic greeting, like 'Happy Holidays.' And a December 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 93% of Americans celebrate Christmas. How offended could Americans be by a reference to a holiday that they themselves are celebrating? ... So permit me to say what the Obamas' card does not: Merry Christmas." -- columnist Carol Platt Liebau


"The most important question any society must answer is: How will we make good people? That is the question Judeo-Christian values have grappled with. There are many and profound theological and practical differences between Judaism and Christianity. But in the American incarnation of Judeo-Christian values -- and America is really the one civilization that developed an amalgamation of Jewish and Christian values -- the emphasis has been on individual character. One cannot make a good society if one does not begin with the arduous task of making good individuals. Both Judaism and Christianity begin with the premise that man is not basically good and therefore regard man's nature as the root of cause of evil. ... When society blames evil on forces outside the individual rather than on the individuals who perpetrate evil, society will work to change those forces rather than work to improve the character of individuals. That is a key to understanding why the left constantly attempts to radically change society -- how else make a better world? .... There is no federal budget, no Senate or House bill, no social policy, no health care fix that can do as much good as a society that is filled with decent people." -- columnist Dennis Prager

"The Web"

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year


A Christmas Miracle!


Happy Birthday Jesus song syncronized to Christmas lights


Harry Reid slips in a bombshell for Obamacare foes

Rick Moran


What did we ever do to deserve Harry Reid?

When the "manager's amendment" was passed in the dead of night, I pointed out that the wonks had yet to give it a good going over to discern what other surprises might lurk in the convoluted language used to obscure so much in the bill.

I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the wonks have not disappointed us.

Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.

The Weekly Standard blog has the story:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable - which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.

The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.

Exclusive: ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill


Senator Roland Burris is claiming credit for a provision in Harry Reid's "manager's amendment," unveiled Saturday morning, that could funnel money to ACORN through the health care bill.

On December 9, Burris, an Illinois Democrat, pledged that he would filibuster a health care bill without a public option. "If we have to get 60 and it comes back and it does not have a public option in it, I will not vote for it," he said. Then early last week he said he could vote for the bill if there were changes made to achieve the goals of the public option: "until this bill addresses cost, competition, and accountability in a meaningful way—it will not win [my vote]."

Asked last night before the Senate voted why he was planning to support a bill without a public option, Burris said: "We have a great bill--the best we could get. And it also covers most of our concerns: competition, cost, and accountability." But had anything specifically changed in the text of the bill that helped him change his mind? Burris told THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "It was the disparity provision that was put in, which we had something to do with, in terms of making sure that diabetes and the other diseases that are affecting minorities are really studied by HHS in all of these pilot programs."

The provision he cites, found on pages 240 through 248 of the manager's amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.” The agencies are the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.”

According to page 241 of the amendment:

In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary, acting through the Deputy Assistant Secretary, shall award grants, contracts, enter into memoranda of understanding, cooperative, interagency, intra-agency and other agreements with public and nonprofit private entities, agencies, as well as Departmental and Cabinet agencies and organizations, and with organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color to assure improved health status of racial and ethnic minorities, and shall develop measures to evaluate the effectiveness of activities aimed at reducing health disparities and supporting the local community. Such measures shall evaluate community outreach activities, language services, workforce cultural competence, and other areas as determined by the Secretary.’’

According to a Senate legislative aide, the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now could qualify for grants under this provision. ACORN would also qualify for funding on page 150 of the underlying Reid bill, which says that "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" may receive grants to "conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans."

Earlier this year, Congress passed and the president signed into law a ban on federal funding for ACORN, but a judge ruled that that law was unconstitutional. If a higher court reverses that ruling, ACORN may be prohibited from receiving funds through the Office of Minority Health earmark. But according to the Senate legislative aide, ACORN would still "absolutely" qualify for federal funding through the provision in the underlying Reid bill because the anti-ACORN appropriations amendment would not apply to funds provided through the health care exchanges.

A spokesman for Sen. Harkin, chairman of the HELP committee, wrote in an email that he "will look into" which organizations qualify for funding under these provisions. Spokesmen for Senators Reid and Dodd did not immediately reply to emails.

Socialist Intervention in the Private Sector is Not True Health Care Reform

Written by The American TFP


The State is assuming the functions of the private sphere.

Is there a right to health care and must the State provide it?

The great controversy over health care reform is centered on concerns of countless Americans that proposed legislative changes will move the country yet one more step down the road toward State intervention and socialism.

This concern is well founded. For decades, the State at all levels and branches has increasingly absorbed the functions of the private sphere. It has weakened the social fabric of the nation by usurping many rights and privileges of individuals, families and businesses with excessive regulation and bureaucratic red tape.

It has imposed similar burdens on those private associations which are the natural intermediate bodies between the individual and the State, such as institutions of the Catholic Church1 and other religious bodies; health and educational institutions; trade and labor associations; and countless charitable groups.

Many Americans are now concerned that direct State intervention in health care will go yet farther and lead to the socialization of our economy.

Respecting the Principles of a Christian Social Order
There is no doubt that the State can act within the principle of authority which affirms the need for a moral force in society capable of efficaciously directing and encouraging the actions of all towards the common good of the social body.

However, there are two other pillars of a Christian social order that must be considered. First, the principle of solidarity, derived from the common nature of men, which leads them to show mutual concern and support for others. There is also the principle of subsidiarity— whereby what can be done by an individual or smaller group is not assigned to a larger group. This principle stems from the fact that man is not only a social being but also a rational, essentially free and responsible being. Thus, he is guaranteed the right to resolve his problems either by himself, through his family or other intermediate social bodies without being obliged to wait for solutions from public authority.

When the State intervenes unnecessarily in the life of its citizens, it invokes the principle of authority to suppress the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. However, while the principle of authority is fundamental for the promotion of the common good, its role is to support and complement the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, not to destroy them. Without balance and harmony among these three fundamental principles, society falls into disarray and easily slides towards totalitarianism, a regime that respects neither individual rights nor freedom.2

Undue State intervention in the private sphere (that is, individuals, families, businesses, religious and other associations) inexorably leads to socialism.

Obama Funder Jodie Evans on Her New ‘Tali’ Pals: Taliban Bring Peace and Justice,

U.S. Created ‘Hell on Earth’ in Afghanistan

by Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King

[Note: This is the latest segment in an ongoing series about Code Pink and its co-founder Jodie Evans. Click here to read earlier articles.]

Photo Credit RAWA

In a wide-ranging interview released this week by MIPtalk, Obama funder, terrorist sympathizer and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans spoke about her meetings with the Taliban and President Barack Obama. She lauded the Taliban for bringing peace and justice to Afghanistan while saying that the U.S. has failed to deliver either.

In a separate interview with Lauren Steiner, Jodie Evans went further in her criticism of the United States saying that we had created “hell on earth” in Afghanistan.

Jodie Evans also spoke about being called on by Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff for a morning-after briefing following her hand delivery of a propaganda package to Obama about Afghanistan.

Jodie Evans admits in the interview she does “a lot to not support the troops.”

It has also been revealed by another source that despite their history of working to get our soldiers killed abroad and waging psychological war against the troops on the homefront, Jodie Evans and Code Pink were allowed to visit an Indiana National Guard unit at a base in Afghanistan.

Jodie Evans was a founding member of Obama’s campaign finance team, recruited in February 2007 to co-host Obama’s breakthrough Hollywood fundraiser with the Dreamworks trio of Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Later in 2007 she was appointed a fundraising bundler by Obama’s presidential campaign. She also donated tens of thousands of dollars to various Obama campaign vehicles in 2007 and 2008.

Obama’s last known in-person meeting with Jodie Evans was at a high dollar San Francisco fundraiser where he allowed himself to be filmed accepting a propaganda package opposing America’s victory in the Af-Pak front in the war on terror.

The Obama administration recently worked with Jodie Evans and Code Pink through the White House Office of Public Engagement to undermine public support for Obama’s surge in Afghanistan in the days after his speech at West Point announcing the new strategy.

The MIPtalk interview with Jodie Evans was conducted October 23rd by Brad Rowe at Code Pink’s Venice, California headquarters. It was posted online December 15th by Rowe who made sure to post a Twitter message to Big Government about its release before he Tweeted Code Pink. If Rowe thought Jodie Evans would come off as the humanitarian superhero Rowe (and she) portrays her to be, he is mistaken.

MIPtalk bills itself as “Conversations with the world’s Most Interesting People.” While Evans has a compelling life story (don’t we all?), her work with state sponsors of terrorism and terrorist groups like the Taliban and Hamas paint her in an unsympathetic, treasonous light to patriotic Americans.

Jodie Evans’ meetings with the Taliban were not mentioned in her and other Code Pink leaders’ reports about their trip to Afghanistan. However, Jodie Evans’ friend and idol Jane Fonda mentioned the meetings in comments that were reported by Big Government.

The interview with MIPtalk is the only known interview of Jodie Evans herself speaking about meeting the Taliban.

Jodie Evans seems to have gotten quite pally with the Taliban, affectionately calling them by the nickname “The Tali” during the interview. She compares the Taliban’s treatment of women favorably to how the Afghan warlords treat women, glossing over the world-renowned atrocities committed against women by the Taliban.

When I was trying to keep us from invading Afghanistan eight years ago, you know, people were arguing, ‘But what about the women?’ And I was saying the warlords are worse than the Taliban, if there could be such a thing.

Because the Taliban at least creates a structure, and they don’t the rape the women. They just kinda keep them in their rooms, quiet. And you know, if you follow the rules, you’re okay. If you don’t, you’re in a lot of trouble.

But that’s true with the warlords. But the warlords are just, there are no rules. They go in and if they see somebody they like, just go in at night and rape them. They rape, you know, go in and rape your children. I mean, they’re still doing that and so the problem is as we go there, the warlords are horrific. We put them in as the governors of provinces that now the Taliban have taken back, and then the warlords are the ministers. They are raping, you know, people in their villages. You know, women are trying to get justice. They can’t get justice and they’re out in the streets. So we — the U.S. — are supporting these horrific war criminals as what we think should be leadership.

What Jodie Evans accuses the Afghan warlords of doing is precisely what the government of Saddam Hussein did to Iraqi women.

That was perfectly acceptable to Jodie Evans in 2003 when she went to Baghdad with Code Pink as a guest of Saddam’s government to lobby the world to keep the genocidal state sponsor of terrorism in power.

Jodie Evans has professed her wish that Saddam were back in power in Iraq even after Saddam’s killing fields and rape rooms were revealed to the world.

Jodie Evans also favorably compares the Taliban to the U.S.

Why is the Taliban in power in Afghanistan again? Because they deliver peace and justice and we, the United States, do not deliver that. We deliver chaos and corruption.

Evans goes on to accuse the U.S. of “creating terrorism”:

What causes terrorism is disrespect, a lack of justice and poverty.

We are creating that in Afghanistan. We are creating terrorism. Our presence creates terrorists. Not for us, because the Taliban is a nationalist organization, but for Afghanistan.

If we continue to create a world where there is poverty and disrespect, there will continue to be terrorism. I mean whether it’s al Qaeda, I mean we’ve made these boogie men.

The Taliban actually wanted to negotiate with the U.S. government. We talked to some of “the Tali” that said this, that they tried to negotiate with the U.S. government under Bush to turn in Osama, or to let him go to Yemen or something else, so that we wouldn’t attack Afghanistan. And U.S. wouldn’t make that deal.

It makes you curious about why we are really in Afghanistan, which is the question for the Afghans.

And I can promise you Obama and his administration have no idea why we’re there. They keep giving us another reason. It changes as much as Bush changed why we were in Iraq. Because if it’s really about al Qaeda, al Qaeda hasn’t been there for four years at least. Maybe there’s a few remnants, but it’s not Osama. There are more al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia and Pakistan.

(Rowe: “Pennsylvania.”)

..and in Pennsylvania, exactly!

Were (sic) those people that, you know, brought down the towers all lived in the United States? And then none of them were from Iraq or Afghanistan.

(Rowe: “They were well educated people from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Syria.”)

…Which is the difference between “the Tali” and al Qaeda, you know. They were very well educated and they’re from other countries. “The Tali” are uneducated warlords.

Jodie Evans trashes everything the U.S. does in Afghanistan, especially its humanitarian endeavors.

Everything we even spend money on is a disaster.

It should be pointed out however, that Jodie Evans’ anti-American propaganda talking points were not believed by some of the non-Code Pink members who accompanied her on the trip to Afghanistan.

Writing at Women on the Web, author Sara Davidson tells of two incidents where she and her traveling compatriot came close to flat out calling their hosts Jodie Evans and her fellow Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin liars.

The first was a conference of about sixty women from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; the second was at Camp Eggers in Kabul.

“During tea breaks, we talk with the women, and when we leave, Rabia Roberts says, ‘No one wanted the American military to be gone.’ Code Pink co-founders Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin and former Army Colonel Ann (Wright) say that’s not what they heard. They’d drawn up a petition urging President Obama not to send more soldiers and to work for a political solution that leads to withdrawing all troops. They asked women at the Trialogue to sign it; some refused, but a dozen signed.

Rabia says, “I feel like we’ve been at two different conferences.”

The same thing happens when we visit Camp Eggers, an army base in the center of Kabul. Rabia and I speak with a dozen soliders (sic) from the Indiana National Guard who are perched on a tank, playing Texas Hold ‘Em and drinking Cokes. ‘We’re here to help people and make a difference,’ one says. ‘It’s not about money — we could make twice as much working for private security, but I’d rather wear the uniform.’

We also meet female soldiers, including an African American who says she hasn’t encountered any hostility from Afghan men. ‘They love me. They can’t do enough to help me. I guess they think I’m exotic.’ For these women soldiers, it is about money. They say they enlisted because, as one puts it, ‘I get free health care for my family, my kids get a free education, I can retire at 38 and get a pension the rest of my life.’

When I repeat this to Medea later, she says, ‘Sounds like socialism to me.’

Medea and Jodie say the soldiers they talked with want out of Afghanistan fast. They told us, ‘We hate them and they hate us.’

Rabia frowns. ‘I didn’t hear anyone speak like that.’

‘Must be the way we ask questions,’ Medea says.

‘Must be,’ Rabia replies.

Just as Jodie Evans and Code Pink did not write about meeting “the Tali” in their reports, they did not disclose their visit to Camp Eggers either.

Photo credit Kristin Fritz

Rabia Roberts, left, and Sara Davidson with Indiana National Guard soldiers at Camp Eggers, Kabul.

Jodie Evans spoke about her meeting with Obama after her trip to Afghanistan, but she did not say anything new. She did not go into much detail in the interview about her conversation with Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff. She does complain about being told that Obama’s overall domestic and foreign policy strategy was dependent on how many votes the administration can get in Congress.

After I gave Obama those signatures, the next morning I got to be briefed by his Deputy Chief of Staff. It was horrific to hear, because on everything — on health care we’re making the wrong decisions. On energy policy we’re making the wrong decisions. And they’re compromising.

…When I asked ‘what’s the decision making points for this?’ (the Deputy Chief of Staff said) ‘It’s about how many votes people can get.’

And I said, ‘It doesn’t matter to me how many votes you get if you can’t do the right thing when it comes up. What does it matter, what do I care?’

Jodie Evans does not describe what she told Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff about her meetings with “the Tali.”

When asked by Rowe about supporting the troops, Jodie Evans laughs.

I’m not so sure I could totally say I support the troops. I do a lot to not support the troops!…I guess how I support the troops is telling the truth. That’s how I support the troops.

Jodie Evans and Code Pink have accused the troops of being terrorists, murderers and assassins who wantonly murder women and children.

In the interview, Jodie Evans implies that she cares about our wounded soldiers, yet she and Code Pink delivered over $600,000 in cash and humanitarian aid to what Code Pink called “the other side” in Fallujah in late 2004 as the Marines were fighting house to house clearing al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from that Iraqi city.

Shortly after that Code Pink started taunting wounded soldiers and their families at the main gate to Walter Reed Army Medical Center as having been “Maimed for a lie.”

Just because President Obama does not publicly embrace Jodie Evans’ demands on the war and just because Jodie Evans publicly criticizes Obama’s policies doesn’t mean they’re not politically aligned, that they don’t share the same radical anti-American agenda.

Taliban sympathizer Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama, Oct. 15, 2009

That Obama and his administration work closely with Jodie Evans and Code Pink is a grave breach of national security and a betrayal of our troops and their families.

"The e-mail Bag"

A Policedman Testifies In Court

Q: "Officer -- did you see my client fleeing the scene?"

A: "No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the
description of the offender, running several blocks away."

Q: "Officer -- who provided this description?"

A: "The officer who responded to the scene."

Q: "A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender.
Do you trust your fellow officers?"

A: "Yes, sir. With my life."

Q: "With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a
room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily

A: "Yes sir, we do!"

Q: "And do you have a locker in the room?"

A: "Yes sir, I do."

Q: "And do you have a lock on your locker?"

A: "Yes sir."

Q: "Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your
life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with
these same officers?"

A: "You see, sir -- we share the building with the court complex, and
sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room."

The courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.
The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year's "Best
Comeback" Line -- I think he'll win.

No comments: