Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"My Comments"
We are back! While I lost much information stored in my ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report library, we are able to produce our informational publication. For so many of you who have sent me "great" information, I apologize, but much was lost, and could not be recovered. Thanks for your concerns and interest.
"Daily Motivations"
Life isn't a matter of milestones but of moments. -- Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"[God] gives His sunlight to both the evil and the good, and He sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too." (Matthew 5:45)
Headlines in recent years have exclaimed: "Horrifying Earthquake Hits Japan," "Hurricane Is Most Devastating Storm on Record," "North Texas Hit By Severe Drought; Farmers Reeling."
Why do bad things happen to good people? Of course, no one can read the mind of God to find out why. However, natural disasters remind us of just how gracious God is to us.
God provides the necessities of life for every human born on this planet. Many times we take His mercy for granted---until we experience a devastating blizzard with the mercury plummeting, or when summer temperatures soar into the 100s for days on end. Then we complain about how bad things are. But God sustains this planet on which we live in a marvelous fashion so that we enjoy night and day, summer and winter, rainy seasons and dry.
Unfortunately, we rarely thank God for the thousands of days of beautiful sunshine. How often do we stop to be thankful that, year after year, the flowers bloom? When was the last time you felt gratitude for your enjoyment of food, friendships, music, art, and so many other things?
Our merciful God always seeks the welfare both of His children and those who have not yet accepted His love and forgiveness. God is the grand master of mercy. His very nature desires to relieve us of the self-imposed misery and distress we experience because of our sin.
"The Patriot Post"
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." -- John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind." -- James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
"The best and only safe road to honor, glory, and true dignity is justice." -- George Washington letter to Marquis de Lafayette, September 30, 1779
"Liberty Counsel"
Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org
July 30, 2009
What Americans Need to Know About The Healthcare Takeover
We recently saw an overview of the healthcare bill being debated in Congress (HR 3200). We found the overview so alarming that we doubted its accuracy, so the staff in our D.C. office compared it to the voluminous bill.
What they found astonished us so much that we had to share it with you today. You can read our updated and revised overview of HR 3200 and you will be alarmed, too.
You can also read the text of HR 3200 - directly from a government website - to see for yourself how dangerous this government healthcare takeover would be.
Of course, it is not enough to be alarmed and do nothing! Congress is going on recess soon, but you can be assured that the liberals behind this bill will not be at rest. They will hold public meetings and try to convince their constituents that government healthcare is the only option.
It is time to visit the Senators and Representatives in their local offices in your state. Take copies of our document on HR 3200 with you so they can understand your concerns.
Find your Senators and Representatives offices online.
Read more about the consequences of this bill in Matt Barber's article "Is There a Co-Pay with Forced Abortion?" Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs for Liberty Counsel and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.
Receive our Liberty Alerts via RSS
Follow us on and
Forward this Liberty Alert to your entire e-mail list of family and friends, and encourage them to subscribe.
Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.
Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854
"The Web"
'Cash for clunkers' going broke
President Obama cancels "Cash for Clunkers" as this program is already broke, after only four days of operation? How much or perhaps how little time and professionalism on economic efforts did President Obama and the majority Capitol Hill Democrats use to calculate this cost to taxpayers? It seems anyone with an eighth (8th.) grade education could have come up to a better fiscal responsible giveaway program for Americans. Vice President Joe Biden can again say "We just underestimated". - oyh
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25638.html
The Obama administration is telling lawmakers that its much-touted 'cash-for-clunkers' program has already run out of money and will be shutting down Thursday night, according to three Senate aides familiar with the discussions. Photo: AP
The Obama administration is telling lawmakers that its much-touted "cash-for-clunkers" program is already running out of money and will be suspended Thursday night, according to three Senate aides familiar with the discussions.
The program — aimed at giving at boost to the U.S. auto industry — was supposed to expire at the end of October. But in the one week since it took effect, it appears to have run dry of the $1 billion allocated to it, aides said Thursday.
The White House will need to decide whether to push for more money at a time when it's also pushing an ambitious and expensive domestic agenda — or let the program fade after it was touted as a way to help Detroit while improving the environment.
White House aides were not immediately available for comment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administers the program, but no one was available for comment Thursday evening.
Last Friday, registration began for dealers who wanted to participate in the program, which is intended to encourage consumers to trade in their old cars for a credit program to purchase new fuel efficient cars.
Under the rules that went into effect last week, the purchased vehicles must be 2008, 2009 or 2010 models, and the vehicles must be purchased between July and November to qualify. And consumers would be able to receive a $3,500-$4,500 discount from car dealerships when they trade in their old vehicles and purchase a new one.
Poll: Palin More Popular Than Pelosi Among Voters
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_popular_pelosi_poll/2009/07/29/241673.html?s=al&promo_code=8472-1
By: Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to a new bipartisan poll released Wednesday.
The Battleground Poll conducted for George Washington University found 42 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee who stepped down last week as governor of Alaska. The survey found 47 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Palin.
While Palin trailed both President Barack Obama (61 favorable/36 unfavorable) and Vice President Joe Biden (48/38) she easily outpolled Pelosi, the highest ranking elected woman in the country.
The survey found 32 percent of likely voters had a favorable impression of Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, and 51 percent had an unfavorable impression.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., trailed them all in personal popularity, with 15 percent holding a favorable impression and 31 percent having an unfavorable impression.
Illegal Immigrants Account for $10.7 Billion of Nation’s Health Care Costs, Data Show
By Matt Cover
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51751
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that “illegal immigrants are not covered” in the health care reform legislation that is now working its way through House committees. But when asked about illegal immigrants who go to public hospitals for care, Pelosi told CNN’s State of the Nation on Sunday the law requires that they be treated.
The cost of treating illegal aliens amounts to nearly $11 billion a year, according to calculations done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit group that opposes illegal immigration. And that cost is not expected to go away if a health insurance reform bill becomes law.
“If you’re in this country illegally, should you be able to get health care?” CNN’s John King asked Pelosi. “No, illegal immigrants are not covered by this plan,” she replied.
“And so what happens to a public hospital then, if they walk into the emergency room? The hospital I was at this week, they said, you know, they do 6,000 births a year there and 70 percent of them are for undocumented [patients],” said King.
“I don’t know about that,” said Pelosi. “But I do know that the law requires that if somebody comes in off the street and needs care, that is extended. What we see in this legislation is that people will have access to affordable health care, and it will diminish the number of people going into those private, public hospitals in the manner in which you described.”
According to FAIR’s Director of Special Projects Jack Martin, illegal immigrants cost federal and state governments an estimated $10.7 billion a year in health care spending. The numbers are contained in a report that FAIR plans to publish in the near future.
“The numbers that I’ve been running come up to a total of $10.7 billion a year,” Martin told CNSNews.com. Those costs include the cost of so-called “anchor babies” – babies born to illegal immigrant parents in U.S. hospitals, almost always at taxpayers’ expense.
Martin said that he included this cost in his estimate because while the newborns are technically U.S. citizens, taxpayers would never have had to pay their mothers’ medical bills had they not illegally entered the country.
“If the illegal immigrants were prevented from coming into the country or were encouraged to leave the country, that cost would disappear,” said Martin. “Emergency medical care for the delivery of children is the biggest [cost].”
Each anchor baby costs taxpayers an estimated $10,000 each on average, Martin said. These costs are usually paid through Medicaid, the federal program designed to aid America’s poor.
“It’s the same [cost] as any other Medicaid birth, it’s the delivery expenses that average in the neighborhood of about $10,000 per delivery,” he said.
Emergency room care for adults is another “significant” part of illegals’ overall burden, Martin said, one that is primarily borne by states, which subsidize the hospitals whose emergency rooms must treat illegal immigrants, no matter how minor their illness might be.
“It’s a fairly significant contribution,” Martin said, “it comes out of the pocket of the states for the most part because of the fact that it is not covered by Medicaid. The federal government has had a program of partial reimbursement of those expenses but that hasn’t been renewed [by this Congress]. It didn’t begin to cover those expenses [anyway].”
That $10.7 billion is not spread evenly throughout the country, Martin explained, but is borne primarily by states with high populations of illegal aliens -- states such as California, Texas, and Florida.
“In terms of locations, it basically flows with where the largest concentration of illegal immigrants are,” said Martin. “For example, California is the largest and just within the state – not including federal monies – I get that [cost] at $1.6 billion per year.”
In fact, state governments bear the heaviest burden for subsidizing the health care of illegal immigrants. Martin said he calculated that, all told, states pay $6.9 billion per year to care for their illegal immigrant populations.
“The estimates of the costs that are paid by the states in total run to about $6.9 billion,” he said. “The difference between that and the over $10 billion figure is the amount that is paid out of federal funds.”
Martin’s figures are similar to those reported in a 2004 study published by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which showed that illegals accounted for $6.4 billion of federal health care spending – the CIS study did not examine states expenditures.
The CIS study did include federal programs for which illegal immigrants are legally barred, such as Medicaid. However, federal funds still flowed their way due to the fact that illegal immigrant parents gain access to federal welfare and health care benefits through their U.S.-born children.
According to the CIS study, illegals accounted for 13.1 percent of all federal costs of covering the uninsured in 2004, an estimated $2.2 billion per year. Seventeen percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant were using Medicaid, accounting for 1.7 percent of all Medicaid recipients.
These trends look to continue if President Obama gets his way on health care reform, Martin said, because the legislation currently making its way through Congress would leave “very large” loopholes, loopholes that are not likely to be closed.
“The current health care bill is looking as if it is leaving a very large loophole for medical coverage being provided to illegal aliens,” Martin said.
“There’s one provision that says they won’t be eligible, but the current legislation as it’s being written does not establish any system of verification as to whether or not a person is legal or illegal.”
Sotomayor Vote Likely Late Next Week
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/07/sotomayor-vote-likely-late-next-week.html
A confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be one of the last things the Senate does next week before it adjourns for its August recess, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today.
Reid spoke at a news conference surrounded by civil rights leaders celebrating the imending confirmation. He said he's still trying to work out the details of the floor debate with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), but he insisted Republicans will have plenty of time to debate the meaning of speeches Sotomayor has given and her involvement in the reverse-discrimination case Ricci v. DeStefano.
"I'm going to make sure that senators can talk about that speech another 30 or 40 times, or about that case another 50 or 60 times," Reid said. The Senate, he said, is "going to work long hours" over the next week-plus as it heads toward an expected Aug. 7 adjournment.
Several Republicans have said they will not support postponing a confirmation vote until September.
There is no argument or rationale that makes this okay...no matter how you voted!
http://board.jokeroo.com/debate/133167-all-hail-queen-nancys-757-a.html
The Jet is a USAF Boeing 757.
*And they STILL want to talk about Sarah's clothing??
Republicans! Are you out there?
*MADAME PELOSI*
Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet that comes with the Speaker's job...no, Madame Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so she ordered a Big Fat 200 seat jet that could get her back to California without stopping!
Many, many legislators walked by and grinned with glee as Joe informed everyone what Nancy's Big Fat Jet costs us, the hard working American Taxpayers, for the thousands of gallons of fuel every week.
Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California , cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000 one way!
As Joe put it, 'Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday Night.' Cost to us is another $60,000. Folks, that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the taxpayers of $5,760,000. No wonder she complains about the cost of this war...it might cramp her style and she is styling, on my back and yours.
I think of the military families in this country doing without and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of this country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing.
Madame Pelosi wants you and me to conserve our carbon footprint. She wants us to buy smaller cars and Obama wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires.
These people are nuts.
If you think this is outrageous, forward it to all those on your email list!
Keep in mind the figures above do NOT include cost of plane or crew or maintenance, JUST FUEL!
One wonders what her total package cost us? And she wants to tax OUR Ira's & 401 K's.....
Poll: Nearly 80% Support Palin 2012 Run
By: Jim Meyers
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_2012_newsmax_poll/2009/07/29/241397.html?s=al&promo_code=8467-1
An Internet poll sponsored by Newsmax.com reveals that nearly four out of five respondents would support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
A slightly larger majority believe the then-Alaska governor helped John McCain in the 2008 presidential race — while only 31 percent think McCain did a good job running for president.
The poll drew more than 600,000 responses, and Newsmax will provide the results to major media and share them with radio talk show hosts across the country.
Here are the poll questions and results:
1) What is your opinion of Sarah Palin?
Favorable: 83 percent
Unfavorable: 17 percent
2) Do you believe Sarah Palin as a running mate helped or hurt John McCain?
Helped: 80 percent
Hurt: 20 percent
3) In the election between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden, who did you vote for?
McCain-Palin: 81 percent
Obama-Biden: 16 percent
Other: 3 percent
4) Would you support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012?
Yes: 78 percent
No: 22 percent
5) Do you believe McCain did a good job running for president?
Good Job: 31 percent
Bad Job: 69 percent
6) Do you believe Barack Obama "bought" the White House by outspending McCain?
Yes: 72 percent
No: 28 percent
You Can Still Vote in the Newsmax Poll on Sarah Palin - Click Here Now
"The e-mail Bag"
An Old Farmer's Advice
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=148758
An Old Farmer's Advice:
* Your fences need to be horse-high, pig-tight and bull-strong. *
* Keep skunks and bankers at a distance.*
* Life is simpler when you plow around the stump.*
* A bumble bee is considerably faster than a John Deere tractor.*
* Words that soak into your ears are whispered...not yelled.*
* Meanness don't jes' happen overnight.*
* Forgive your enemies. It messes up their heads.*
* Do not corner something that you know is meaner than you.*
* It don't take a very big person to carry a grudge.*
* You cannot unsay a cruel word.*
* Every path has a few puddles.*
* When you wallow with pigs, expect to get dirty.*
* The best sermons are lived, not preached.
* Most of the stuff people worry about ain't never gonna happen anyway.*
* Don't judge folks by their relatives.*
* Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.*
* Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll enjoy it a second time.*
* Don't interfere with somethin' that ain't bothering you none.*
* Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a Rain dance.*
* If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'.*
* Sometimes you get, and sometimes you get got.*
* The biggest troublemaker you'll probably ever have to deal with, watches you from the mirror every mornin'.*
* Always drink upstream from the herd.*
* Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment.*
* Lettin' the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier than puttin' it back in.*
* If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around.*
* Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply.*
* Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.*
* Speak kindly. Leave the rest to YAH.*
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090727
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
“My Comments”
First of all, may I ask everyone to pray for Preacher Hank Parker of Unionville Baptist Church, Monroe, NC who was too sick to attend Church on Sunday and deliver a sermon. I tell others, Preacher Hank works only some eighty (80) hours weekly for God and his Church as a full-time Pastor, leaving some eighty eighty-eight (88) hours left for his family of a weekly schedule. Additionally, at the Sunday evening service, while our Youth Group were presenting an inspirational skit with Pastor Hank’s daughter, Kelsey Parker performing a star act which was so physical, Kelsey was overcome by exertion. Kelsey returned some time later, joining the Youth Group with their singing. After the singing and moments later, Kelsey collapsed from “fainting” while in the Sanctuary. The EMS was called who came and treated Kelsey for overexertion, then released her to go home with rest and more fluids. With that, please pray for Preacher Hank and daughter Kelsey for a quick recovery. At the time, keep Preacher Hank’s wife, Wendy and other daughter Brittany in (y)our Prayers.
Secondly, on Monday morning, I am going to be required to put my computer into Tekshop of North Carolina, Inc. Two of my most important files for this publication is locked up and I don't know how to unlock it, but Jim Rankin will. With that in mind, ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report may be delayed for a couple of days.
"Daily Motivations"
"Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today." -- Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865)
"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will." -- Vince Lombardi (1913-1970)
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"God showed His great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." (Romans 5:8)
On a cold Christmas Eve in 1952, when Korea was in the throes of civil war, one young woman struggled along a village street, obviously soon to deliver a child. She pleaded with passersby, "Help me! Please ... my baby!" No one paid any attention to her.
She had heard of a missionary who lived in a neighboring village who might help her. Hurriedly, she began walking to that village. But the night was so cold. Snow began to fall. Realizing that her time was near to deliver her baby, she took shelter under a bridge. There, alone, her baby was born on Christmas Eve.
Worried about her newborn son, she took off her own clothes, wrapped them around the baby, and held him close in the warm circle of her arms. On Christmas day, the missionary braved the new snow to deliver Christmas packages. As he walked along, he heard the cry of a baby. He followed the sound to a bridge. Under it, he found a young mother frozen to death, still clutching her crying newborn son. The missionary tenderly lifted the baby out of her arms.
When the baby was ten years old, his now adoptive father told him the story of his mother's death on Christmas Eve. The young boy cried, realizing the sacrifice his mother had made for him.
The next morning, the missionary rose early to find the young boy's bed empty. Seeing a fresh set of small footprints in the snow outside, he bundled up warmly in a winter coat and followed the trail. It led back to the bridge where the young mother had died.
As the missionary approached the bridge, he stopped, stunned. Kneeling in the snow was his son, naked and shivering uncontrollably. Moving closer, he heard the boy say through chattering teeth: "Mother, were you this cold for me?"
As we picture our Lord Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, we ask, "Lord, did you suffer that much for me?" The answer, of course, is a resounding "yes."
"The Patriot Post"
"Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens." -- George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788
"We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience." -- Theophilus Parsons, the Essex Result, 1778
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." -- John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"Mr. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing -- all of which produce enormous quantities this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day -- just by breathing. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. And this brings us to the fine point of it. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration -- how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930's, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products. Waxman Markey [cap and trade bill] is our generation's Smoot Hawley. In fact, it's worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. ... In the most serious recession since the Great Depression -- why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Mr. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover." -- California Rep. Tom McClintock
"NFL News"
Open Letter to the NFL.
To contact NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, send the email To: password@nil.com with Subject: Password Help. Provide the following information in the Body of your e-mail: Login ID; First Name; Last Name; Registered E-mail Address; Zip Code; Date of Birth. - oyh
You may also use the NFL “Contact Form” at: http://www.nil.com/contact-us
Dear Mr. Commissioner Goodell,
I read the article in today's Washington Post (9-25-09) on page 1, entitled "Question Facing Goodell: Does Vick Know How It Feels?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072401951.html
The article states, "According to reports, after a three-hour meeting with Vick on Thursday, Goodell has tentatively decided to allow him to attend the opening of training camp next week," and adds that you stated, "we are engaging in a careful and thoughtful process, and no decisions have been made," spokesman Greg Aiello said.
The Washington Post article also states and I believe, too, "Vick killed and maimed animals for sport and treated them as discardable when they were played out and used up. His presence on the field will associate the NFL with cruelty as public entertainment and put the worst possible connotation on a word so often used to describe the league: 'gladiatorial.' People will assume Vick learned this inhumane behavior playing the game, and some will say the league sanctions it."
I agree with the Ethical Treatment of Animals representatives. They "have called on Goodell to give Vick a full psychological evaluation before allowing him to play, claiming he shows signs of antisocial personality disorder, which means he takes pleasure in harming things, is remorseless, and the chance of his recidivism is high."
The article also states, "According to PETA, Vick enjoyed placing pets in the cage with fighting pit bulls." ..."PETA President Ingrid Newkirk told the Newport News Daily Press, 'Saying sorry and getting his ball back after being caught enjoying killing dogs in hideously cruel ways for many years doesn't cut it.'"
Just remember HE ADMITTED TO THIS AWESOME ACT OF CRUELTY! No matter what good he has done in the past, there is no remorse that could even touch forgiveness of such acts of cruelty! Mr. Goodell, you should not even listen to Vick's supposedly remorse. He is just saying that to get you on his side. He is not sorry. He just wants to get back his job as an example to the nationwide community which now he can't possibly do; no matter how much good he thinks he can do.
Again, Vick is a very sick man and I beg of you to not reinstate him!
Thank you in advance for your attention to these notations from the Washington Post and others mentioned in the July 25, 09 edition, front page.
Nellie Austin
NFL Fan
"The Web"
Confucius Says:
Man who run in front of car get tired.
Man who run behind car get exhausted.
Rasmussen: Obama Double-Digit Negatives
A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that President Barack Obama's rating in Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index has hit negative double digits for the first time.
The survey found that 29 percent of voters strongly approve of Obama's job performance, while 40 percent strongly disapprove.
Rasmussen calculates its Presidential Approval Index by subtracting the "strongly disapprove" figure from the "strongly approve" figure. As a result, Obama's overall score is a minus-11. That's the first time his rating has reached negative double digits.
Other results of the poll:
49 percent somewhat approve of Obama's performance.
50 percent disapprove of Obama's performance.
76 percent see Obama as liberal.
48 percent see Obama as very liberal.
54 percent primarily blame former President George W. Bush for America's economic woes.
25 percent say the U.S. economy has been aided by the economic stimulus package.
53 percent oppose the Democratic healthcare reform package.
37 percent say deficit reduction should be Obama's top priority.
20 percent say healthcare should be Obama's top priority.
The poll is based on answers from 1,500 likely voters. It has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
Obama’s Healthcare Plan
-Did Obama's speech make you cry from boredom and lack of veracity? Here is what he should have said about his health care bill
http://www.aconservativevoicetoday.com/2009/07/did-obamas-speech-make-you-cry-from.html
Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure.
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill — a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill — YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!
Pg 42 of HC Bill — The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you.
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill — HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 58 HC Bill — Government will have real-time access to individual's finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer.
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill — Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example — Translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill — Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members — your Health care WILL be rationed.
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill — Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill — Doctors/ AMA — The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC — "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill — Doctors — doesn't matter what specialty — will all be paid the same.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion — Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 — Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)
Obama IS a socialist, there is no doubt about it now.
Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals
By: David A. Patten
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html?s=al&promo_code=83A3-1
On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.
The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.
The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade.
Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs.
But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals.
Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.
"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."
Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan.
Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.
GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.
A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."
The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."
The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.
The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.
Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill.
Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.
Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."
But a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.
"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.
James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."
Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program.
The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."
The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.
John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms.
Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added.
"A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.
Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.
Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.
Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.
One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.
Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda.
"I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June.
Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.
Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.
"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."
Hoyer Says Abortion Funding in Health-Care Bill Splits House Democrats
By Edwin Mora and Marie Magleby
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51370
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.)
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) admitted Tuesday that there is dissension among House Democrats about whether the final health-care reform bill should include federal funding for abortions -- so much so, that the issue is still under discussion in the Democratic Caucus.
“There are very strong feelings on both sides of that issue, and we are working to resolve them so we have the votes to pass this bill,” Hoyer said at his weekly pen-and-pad news conference on Capitol Hill.
Hoyer also assured reporters that he believes a “public option” for government-funded health care would be part of the final bill, but said that the details are still the subject of negotiations with conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who don’t want the government-run insurance mandate.
“I think there’s going to be a public option,” he said. “And I don’t think the pubic option is a non-negotiable item for the Blue Dogs. They have certain things they want to see in a public option – they’d like to see the trigger, but I don’t think that is going to happen. But they also want to see a level playing field and I think that, to the extent that we can affect, it’s going to happen. So there are ways and means of moving forward on that.”
Hoyer, meanwhile, echoed President Obama, who expressed confidence Monday that Congress was “closer than ever before” to reaching agreement on the health-care reform bill.
“Everybody wants to see a health-care reform bill that they can vote for,” Hoyer said. “I don’t think there are any of you that have found anybody that says ‘I don’t want to do health-care reform.’”
But the majority leader clarified, however, that he was referring only to Democratic lawmakers and blasted congressional Republicans of wanting the bill to fail “without considering the needs of the American people.”
“I’m not talking about the Republican side,” Hoyer said. “I’m talking about our side of the aisle. On the Republican side of the aisle, as I’ve told you, they want us to fail.
“Their (Republicans’) interest is much more in making failure happen than progress for the American people,” he said.
Hoyer specifically cited Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)’s vocal opposition to the Democrat-sponsored health-care reform bill as evidence of Republican intentions, quoting DeMint as saying, “’If we re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.’”
According to Hoyer, DeMint’s comment “is consistent with the Luntz memo, and consistent with what, clearly, the Republicans are trying to do.”
Hoyer was referring to a strategy memo written by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, “The Language of Healthcare 2009,” which counseled the GOP with 10 points on how to frame its response to the Democratic health-care plan.
Ironically, Luntz’ memo is a Republican counterpart to a June 2008 memo by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake – “How to Talk About Health Care Reform” -- which counseled “progressives” (liberals) on what language to use to the American public to sell health-care reform.
Hoyer, who did not mention Lake’s strategy memo, did follow the strategy it laid out Tuesday, saying Republicans “were opposed to a health-care bill that, clearly, Americans want – and they have indicated that in poll after poll.”
“(Republicans) want us to fail notwithstanding the fact that our failure will be the failure to get the American public fully involve in the security of health-care coverage,” Hoyer said.
According the latest polls, however, American approval for President Obama’s handling of health-care reform has fallen to 49 per cent while disapproval has reached 44 per cent, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
In addition, a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 50 per cent of Americans disapprove while 44 per cent approve of Obama’s approach to health-care reform.
To the Members of the United States Senate:
http://conservativehq.com/chq-original/letter-to-senators/
We, the undersigned 156 conservative and constitutional cause leaders, activists and other concerned citizens, respectfully submit a statement in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.
Even President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Rejects His Views on the Constitution
But Confirmation Conversions Are Not Acceptable for Lifetime Appointments
It is historic, as far as we know, that a nominee to the Supreme Court has gone on record at her confirmation hearing to reject the underlying judicial philosophy of the President who made the nomination.
President Obama said his judicial nominee would be someone with "empathy" and "who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook.'' "That's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he said.
Top presidential advisor David Axelrod said in a May 26, 2009 interview that President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor because "he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his," which as applied to the law and constitutional principles was to "be ready to adapt them to a modern context."
In his opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions said, "I will not vote for and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against the parties before the court. In my view, such a philosophy is disqualifying."
In response to questioning from Sen. Jon Kyl about whether she agreed with the president's judicial philosophy, Judge Sotomayor replied, "No, sir, I wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law."
Some observers noted that judge Sotomayor appeared to have a "confirmation conversion" about following the law, not personal preferences.
Voters will have their chance to render their judgment about President Obama and his views of governing at the polls. If Judge Sotomayor were confirmed for the Supreme Court, however, her appointment would be for life.
We the undersigned believe that Judge Sotomayor did have a confirmation conversion, perhaps based on her realization that the judicial philosophy she shares with President Obama is in fact disqualifying for confirmation to our highest court, or perhaps because that judicial philosophy is unpopular. It is not an objectionable judicial philosophy that judges may check constitutional abuses by the other branches. However, a judicial philosophy that goes beyond the authority granted by Article III of the Constitution should be disqualifying.
Given that an appointment to the Supreme Court is for life, the statements by the President and his advisors, and Judge Soto mayor's pre-confirmation statements that conflicted with her confirmation testimony, we believe her judicial philosophy is indeed one that should disqualify her from appointment to the Supreme Court.
This is a matter of whether the nominee has demonstrated that she will abide by the role of the judiciary consistent with, and as constrained by, the Constitution.
Judge Sotomayor's rulings, whether dealing with the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, private property rights, criminal law, use of foreign law, race, equal protection and other areas of law, demonstrate that if she is consistently "empathetic" at all, it is in favor of government power, even beyond constitutional constraints.
Americans are witnessing how much more ideological President Obama is in office compared to "candidate" Obama. He has shown a disturbing disregard for the constitutional limits on presidential and other government power. While we do not hold Judge Sotomayor responsible for her sponsor's ideology, we do believe the Constitution would be placed in further jeopardy if she were confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.
We urge the Senate to reject Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor should remain a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where her decisions would be subject to the check of the Supreme Court.
President Obama should nominate another candidate whose views of judicial power are demonstrably consistent with Article III of the Constitution. That means the next nominee's views of the judiciary should be demonstrably inconsistent with the President's, whose views are not consistent with Article III, even before that nominee's confirmation hearings.
Respectfully,
(Organization name for identification purposes only)
Carolee Adams
President, Eagle Forum of New Jersey
Bob Barr
Liberty Guard
David Bergeron
Troup County
Georgia Right to Life
Morton C. Blackwell
Conservative Leadership PAC
L. Brent Bozell
Media Research Center
Floyd Brown
President, Western Center for Journalism
H. William Burgess
President, Aloha for All
Thomas Patrick Burke
The Wynnewood Institute
Kathryn Ciano
Vice President, Federalist Society
James N. Clymer
Constitution Party
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
The Beverly LaHaye Institute
Concerned Women for America
Kay R. Daly
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
David Y. Denholm
Public Service Research Council
Mario Diaz
Concerned Women for America
Elaine Donnelly
President, Center for Military Readiness
Dan Douglass
Interim Hawaii State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty
Brandon Dutcher
Chairman,
Oklahoma Center-Right Coalition
Fran Eaton
Editor, IllinoisReview.com
former State Pres. Eagle Forum of IL
Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
Richard W. C. Falknor
Maryland Center-Right Coalition
Mark Fitzgibbons, Esq.
American Target Advertising
Corinne Fuller
His Helping Hand Foundation
Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman, Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Diane Gramley
American Family Association of PA
Sandy Greiner
American Future Fund
William F. Harvey
Emeritus Dean & Professor
Indiana University School of Law
--Indianapolis
Robert Heckman
Capital City Partners
Dr. Carl Herbster
President, AdvanceUSA
Dee Hodges
Maryland Taxpayers Association
David James
President, The Liberty Committee
Patti Kanduch
CWFA of Montana
Richard Kimble
Young America's Foundation
Andrea Lafferty
Traditional Values Coalition
Jimmy LaSalvia
GOProud.org
Harry Levine
VictoryNH.com
Steve Lonegan
Recent NJ GOP gubernatorial candidate
Michelle Madd
CWFA of Colorado
Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom
Abraham H. Miller, Ph.D.
Abraham H. Miller Research
Chuck Muth
Citizen Outreach
Phyllis H. Nemeth
CWFA of California
Richard Norman
The Richard Norman Company
Kent Ostrander
The Family Foundation
Kathleen Patten
American Target Advertising
Ron Pearson
Council for America
Howard Phillips
The Conservative Caucus
Don Racheter
Iowa Wednesday Group
Paul A. Rahe
Hillsdale College
Alfred S. Regnery
The American Spectator
Beverly Roberts
CWFA of Texas
Ron Robinson
Young America's Foundation
Dick Rowland
Center-Right Coalition Meetings-Hawaii
Linda D. Schauer
CWFA of South Dakota
Howard Segermark
Coordinator, Committee for
Consumer-Centered Healthcare
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Traditional Values Coalition
Marcena Springer
North Texas CWFA
Judy Stemen
American Family Association
Hon. Steve Stockman
Congressman (ret.)
Presidential Trust
Herbert W. Titus
William J. Olson, P.C.
Piero A. Tozzi, Esq.
C-FAM Catholic Family
& Human Rights Institute
Richard A. Viguerie
ConservativeHQ.com
Mark Williamson
Founder & President
Federal Intercessors
Wendy Wright
Concerned Women for America
Craig Zinkoski
Central NJ/Ocean Co. ACT! For America!
Joshua & Kimberly Abbott
Concerned Citizens - Virginia
Jared Bristol
Concerned Citizen – Maine
Henry C. Clark
Concerned Citizen – New York
John Kekes
Concerned Citizen – New York
Robert J. Muckenhirn
Concerned Citizen – Virginia
Tracy Oetting
Concerned Citizen – Washington
Lauren Patten
Concerned Citizen – Texas
Donna Rastorfer
Concerned Citizen
Dr. Marvin & Elisabeth Schoenecke
Concerned Citizens – Missouri
LaNeil Wright Spivy
Concerned Citizen - Texas
Bret Ulibarri
Concerned Citizen – Massachusetts
Mary Helen Warren
Concerned Citizen - Massachusetts Gary W. Aldrich
Former senior FBI Special Agent
Bestselling author & Patrick Henry scholar
Michael Bass
Conservatives for Change
Helen Blackwell
Virginia Chairman, Eagle Forum
Kenneth Boehm
National Legal and Policy Center
Bill Brooks
North Carolina Family Policy Council
Mary Beth Brown
Author and Columnist
Sandra Puanani Burgess
Co-Founder & Vice President, Aloha for All
Dr. Paul Cameron
Family Research Institute
Kellyanne Conway, Esq.
The Polling Company, Inc.
WomanTrend
David Crowe
Restore America
Marjorie Dannenfelser
Susan B. Anthony List
Candace de Russy
National Review
Tanya Ditty
CWFA of Georgia
Michael P. Donnelly, Esq.
Adjunct Professor Patrick Henry College
Staff Counsel, HSLDA
Douglas S. Doudney
Coalition For Property Rights
Carol Dufrense
CWFA of Ohio
Michelle Easton
Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute
Barbara Elliott
Center for Renewal
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily
Don Feder
Don Feder Associates
Peter Flaherty
National Legal and Policy Center
Erin Gabel
CWFA of Ohio
Shari Goodman
Calabasas-West Valley ACT Chapter
Paul Gottfried
Raffensperger, Professor of Humanities
Elizabethtown College
William Greene, Ph.D.
President, RightMarch.com
Colin A. Hanna
Let Freedom Ring
Linda Harvey
President, Mission America
Mike Hodge
The Valley American
Deborah Honeycutt, MD
MHealthS, Inc.
Haven Howard
CWFA of Missouri
Phillip L. Jauregui
Judicial Action Group
Gary G. Kreep
United States Justice Foundation
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Tana-Lee
ACT! for America
Curt Levey
Committee for Justice
Micki Lewis
ACT-MIAMI
Tim Macy
Gun Owners of America
Jim Martin
60 Plus Association
Tom McClusky
FRCAction
Manny Miranda
Third Branch
Janne Myrdal
CWFA of North Dakota
C. Preston Noell, III
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
William J. Olson
William J. Olson, P.C.
Karl Ottosen
US Federation of Small Businesses
Lowell T. Patterson
Constitution Party
Tony Perkins
Family Research Council
Larry Pratt
Gun Owners of America
Bobbi Radeck
CWFA of Ohio
William Redpath
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
David A. Ridenour
The Nat. Center for Public Policy Research
Janet Robey
CWFA of Virginia
Allen Roth
Board of ACU
New York State Conservative Party
Austin Ruse
President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Nancy Schaefer
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Ilya Shapiro
Cato Institute
John M. Snyder
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Mathew D. Staver
Liberty Counsel
Liberty University School of Law
James A. Stever
Professor, University of Cincinnati
Matthew Taylor
Private Sector Solution Advocacy
Kerri Houston Toloczko
Institute for Liberty
Kathryn Ulibarri
Massachusetts Citizens For Life
Worcester Youth Coalition For Life
Carrie Walker
Director, CWFA of Michigan
William Wilson
Americans for Limited Government
Tom Winter
Eagle Publishing
Richard Ziser
Nevada Concerned Citizens
Bruce & Robin Bradley
Concerned Citizens – Alabama
Mario A. Calabrese
Concerned Citizen – District of Columbia
Roy D. Kaylor
MSGT USMC (Ret)
Donna Maxey
Concerned Citizen
Len Munsil, Esq.
Concerned Citizen – Arizona
Larry Passage
Concerned Citizen – New Jersey
Elfrieda Peninger
Concerned Citizen – Missouri
Edward Reott
Concerned Citizen - Utah
Ken & Cindi Slaughter
Concerned Citizens
Linda Stillings
Concerned Citizen
Mary Underdahl
Concerned Citizen - Utah
The following individuals signed the letter after it was sent to Senators:
Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy
Fr Frank Pavone
Priests for Life
Michael W. Grebe
Yvonne D. Trotter, Ph.D. Mark A. Trotter Irma Fiordalisi
Palin Ethics Investigation Lawyer's Revelation to FindLaw
It must be so painful for the Liberal Democrats, the "ACLU", as well as the Liberal TV and Print Media, to continue to pursue any and every effort to politically and financially destroy Sarah Palin at all cost. Sarah Palin is one of the most "honorable" individuals "ever" in public like. Sarah Palin is "right" on the "fiscal and social issues" of the day. Sarah Palin is so Blessed herself, and is able to communicate these Blessings to the masses of people. - oyh
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT: PAYING PALIN'S LEGAL FEES VIOLATES ALASKA LAW
(July 21, 2009) - Thomas Daniel, the lawyer hired by Alaska's Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint involving Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's legal defense, confirmed to FindLaw that a copy of his confidential report had somehow become public. Daniel said "I suspect the complainant released it, but don't know for sure." Daniel concluded in his report that probable cause exists to "believe payment of the Governor's legal fees by the Alaska Fund Trust will violate the [Alaska's] Ethics Act." Read more...
http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2009/07/palin-ethics-investigation-lawyer-tells-findlaw-i-suspect-the-complainant-released-report.html
Palin Ethics Investigation Lawyer Tells FindLaw: "I Suspect The Complainant Released" Report
By Joel Zand on July 21, 2009 7:37 PM | No TrackBacks
Thomas Daniel (inset) the lawyer hired by Alaska's Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint involving Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's legal defense fund set up to help pay the cost of defending allegations of misconduct while in
Thomas M. Daniel
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2078871_1?channel=LP
office, confirmed to FindLaw that a copy of his confidential report had somehow become public. Daniel said "I suspect the complainant released it, but don't know for sure."
Eagle River, Alaska resident Kim Chapman filed the ethics complaint against Gov. Palin on April 27, 2009, alleging that Palin's Alaska Fund Trust violated two Executive Branch ethics laws that 1) prohibit using an official position for personal gain, and 2) bar public officials from accepting gifts that seek to influence how official duties are performed.
"It is a copy of my report," Daniel told FindLaw, but emphasized that "the release was not authorized," and that "there was no deadline" to make it public." The only person capable of waiving the confidentiality provision to which he remained bound, Daniel stated in his report, is Gov. Palin.
The Palin Ethics Complaint Investigation Report's Conclusions and Recommendations
In his report, Daniel concluded that the trust set up to pay Palin's legal fees created:
probable cause to believe that payment of the Governor's legal fees by the Alaska Fund Trust will violate the [State's] Ethics Act prohibition against a public officer accepting gifts intended to influence performance of official duties.
He recommended that Gov. Palin could take corrective action "to resolve this [ethics] complaint without the necessity of a formal hearing." The recommendations included having Palin:
refuse to accept payment of her legal fees and costs from the Alaska Fund Trust and withdraw her authorization for the trust to be recognized as her 'official legal defense fund.' I also recommend that seek reimbursement from the state for the cost of defending the ethics complaints that have been dismissed.
Finally, Daniel urged Alaska's state legislature to weigh "amending the Ethics Act to require the state to reimburse a public official for legal fees and costs" for defending Ethics Act complaints that are ultimately dismissed.
You can read a copy of the report here, that was posted on the Anchorage Daily News home page:
Palin Ethics Complaint Report
Related Resources:
Investigator rules against Palin in ethics probe
Alaska Personnel Board
Thomas Daniel, the lawyer hired by Alaska's Personnel Board
Palin's Future Remains a Mystery, Reuters, (Jul. 9, 2009)
Palin seeks review of Monegan firing case Anchorage Daily News, (Sept. 3, 2008)
Related Resources
• Thomas Daniel, the lawyer who authored the ethics complaint report
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2078871_1?channel=LP
"The e-mail Bag"
AMA THOUGHTS ON THE STIMULUS PACKAGE
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new economic stimulus package.
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologist had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the
Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the
Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the
Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the
Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the ass holes in Washington ..
“My Comments”
First of all, may I ask everyone to pray for Preacher Hank Parker of Unionville Baptist Church, Monroe, NC who was too sick to attend Church on Sunday and deliver a sermon. I tell others, Preacher Hank works only some eighty (80) hours weekly for God and his Church as a full-time Pastor, leaving some eighty eighty-eight (88) hours left for his family of a weekly schedule. Additionally, at the Sunday evening service, while our Youth Group were presenting an inspirational skit with Pastor Hank’s daughter, Kelsey Parker performing a star act which was so physical, Kelsey was overcome by exertion. Kelsey returned some time later, joining the Youth Group with their singing. After the singing and moments later, Kelsey collapsed from “fainting” while in the Sanctuary. The EMS was called who came and treated Kelsey for overexertion, then released her to go home with rest and more fluids. With that, please pray for Preacher Hank and daughter Kelsey for a quick recovery. At the time, keep Preacher Hank’s wife, Wendy and other daughter Brittany in (y)our Prayers.
Secondly, on Monday morning, I am going to be required to put my computer into Tekshop of North Carolina, Inc. Two of my most important files for this publication is locked up and I don't know how to unlock it, but Jim Rankin will. With that in mind, ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report may be delayed for a couple of days.
"Daily Motivations"
"Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today." -- Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865)
"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will." -- Vince Lombardi (1913-1970)
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"God showed His great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." (Romans 5:8)
On a cold Christmas Eve in 1952, when Korea was in the throes of civil war, one young woman struggled along a village street, obviously soon to deliver a child. She pleaded with passersby, "Help me! Please ... my baby!" No one paid any attention to her.
She had heard of a missionary who lived in a neighboring village who might help her. Hurriedly, she began walking to that village. But the night was so cold. Snow began to fall. Realizing that her time was near to deliver her baby, she took shelter under a bridge. There, alone, her baby was born on Christmas Eve.
Worried about her newborn son, she took off her own clothes, wrapped them around the baby, and held him close in the warm circle of her arms. On Christmas day, the missionary braved the new snow to deliver Christmas packages. As he walked along, he heard the cry of a baby. He followed the sound to a bridge. Under it, he found a young mother frozen to death, still clutching her crying newborn son. The missionary tenderly lifted the baby out of her arms.
When the baby was ten years old, his now adoptive father told him the story of his mother's death on Christmas Eve. The young boy cried, realizing the sacrifice his mother had made for him.
The next morning, the missionary rose early to find the young boy's bed empty. Seeing a fresh set of small footprints in the snow outside, he bundled up warmly in a winter coat and followed the trail. It led back to the bridge where the young mother had died.
As the missionary approached the bridge, he stopped, stunned. Kneeling in the snow was his son, naked and shivering uncontrollably. Moving closer, he heard the boy say through chattering teeth: "Mother, were you this cold for me?"
As we picture our Lord Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, we ask, "Lord, did you suffer that much for me?" The answer, of course, is a resounding "yes."
"The Patriot Post"
"Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens." -- George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788
"We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience." -- Theophilus Parsons, the Essex Result, 1778
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." -- John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"Mr. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing -- all of which produce enormous quantities this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day -- just by breathing. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. And this brings us to the fine point of it. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration -- how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930's, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products. Waxman Markey [cap and trade bill] is our generation's Smoot Hawley. In fact, it's worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. ... In the most serious recession since the Great Depression -- why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Mr. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover." -- California Rep. Tom McClintock
"NFL News"
Open Letter to the NFL.
To contact NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, send the email To: password@nil.com with Subject: Password Help. Provide the following information in the Body of your e-mail: Login ID; First Name; Last Name; Registered E-mail Address; Zip Code; Date of Birth. - oyh
You may also use the NFL “Contact Form” at: http://www.nil.com/contact-us
Dear Mr. Commissioner Goodell,
I read the article in today's Washington Post (9-25-09) on page 1, entitled "Question Facing Goodell: Does Vick Know How It Feels?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072401951.html
The article states, "According to reports, after a three-hour meeting with Vick on Thursday, Goodell has tentatively decided to allow him to attend the opening of training camp next week," and adds that you stated, "we are engaging in a careful and thoughtful process, and no decisions have been made," spokesman Greg Aiello said.
The Washington Post article also states and I believe, too, "Vick killed and maimed animals for sport and treated them as discardable when they were played out and used up. His presence on the field will associate the NFL with cruelty as public entertainment and put the worst possible connotation on a word so often used to describe the league: 'gladiatorial.' People will assume Vick learned this inhumane behavior playing the game, and some will say the league sanctions it."
I agree with the Ethical Treatment of Animals representatives. They "have called on Goodell to give Vick a full psychological evaluation before allowing him to play, claiming he shows signs of antisocial personality disorder, which means he takes pleasure in harming things, is remorseless, and the chance of his recidivism is high."
The article also states, "According to PETA, Vick enjoyed placing pets in the cage with fighting pit bulls." ..."PETA President Ingrid Newkirk told the Newport News Daily Press, 'Saying sorry and getting his ball back after being caught enjoying killing dogs in hideously cruel ways for many years doesn't cut it.'"
Just remember HE ADMITTED TO THIS AWESOME ACT OF CRUELTY! No matter what good he has done in the past, there is no remorse that could even touch forgiveness of such acts of cruelty! Mr. Goodell, you should not even listen to Vick's supposedly remorse. He is just saying that to get you on his side. He is not sorry. He just wants to get back his job as an example to the nationwide community which now he can't possibly do; no matter how much good he thinks he can do.
Again, Vick is a very sick man and I beg of you to not reinstate him!
Thank you in advance for your attention to these notations from the Washington Post and others mentioned in the July 25, 09 edition, front page.
Nellie Austin
NFL Fan
"The Web"
Confucius Says:
Man who run in front of car get tired.
Man who run behind car get exhausted.
Rasmussen: Obama Double-Digit Negatives
A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that President Barack Obama's rating in Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index has hit negative double digits for the first time.
The survey found that 29 percent of voters strongly approve of Obama's job performance, while 40 percent strongly disapprove.
Rasmussen calculates its Presidential Approval Index by subtracting the "strongly disapprove" figure from the "strongly approve" figure. As a result, Obama's overall score is a minus-11. That's the first time his rating has reached negative double digits.
Other results of the poll:
49 percent somewhat approve of Obama's performance.
50 percent disapprove of Obama's performance.
76 percent see Obama as liberal.
48 percent see Obama as very liberal.
54 percent primarily blame former President George W. Bush for America's economic woes.
25 percent say the U.S. economy has been aided by the economic stimulus package.
53 percent oppose the Democratic healthcare reform package.
37 percent say deficit reduction should be Obama's top priority.
20 percent say healthcare should be Obama's top priority.
The poll is based on answers from 1,500 likely voters. It has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.
Obama’s Healthcare Plan
-Did Obama's speech make you cry from boredom and lack of veracity? Here is what he should have said about his health care bill
http://www.aconservativevoicetoday.com/2009/07/did-obamas-speech-make-you-cry-from.html
Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure.
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill — a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill — YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!
Pg 42 of HC Bill — The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you.
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill — HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 58 HC Bill — Government will have real-time access to individual's finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer.
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill — Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example — Translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill — Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members — your Health care WILL be rationed.
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill — Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill — Doctors/ AMA — The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC — "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill — Doctors — doesn't matter what specialty — will all be paid the same.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion — Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 — Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)
Obama IS a socialist, there is no doubt about it now.
Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals
By: David A. Patten
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html?s=al&promo_code=83A3-1
On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.
The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.
The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade.
Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs.
But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals.
Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.
"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."
Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan.
Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.
GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.
A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."
The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."
The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.
The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.
Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill.
Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.
Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."
But a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.
"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.
James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."
Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program.
The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."
The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.
John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms.
Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added.
"A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.
Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.
Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.
Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.
One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.
Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda.
"I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June.
Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.
Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.
"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."
Hoyer Says Abortion Funding in Health-Care Bill Splits House Democrats
By Edwin Mora and Marie Magleby
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51370
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.)
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) admitted Tuesday that there is dissension among House Democrats about whether the final health-care reform bill should include federal funding for abortions -- so much so, that the issue is still under discussion in the Democratic Caucus.
“There are very strong feelings on both sides of that issue, and we are working to resolve them so we have the votes to pass this bill,” Hoyer said at his weekly pen-and-pad news conference on Capitol Hill.
Hoyer also assured reporters that he believes a “public option” for government-funded health care would be part of the final bill, but said that the details are still the subject of negotiations with conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who don’t want the government-run insurance mandate.
“I think there’s going to be a public option,” he said. “And I don’t think the pubic option is a non-negotiable item for the Blue Dogs. They have certain things they want to see in a public option – they’d like to see the trigger, but I don’t think that is going to happen. But they also want to see a level playing field and I think that, to the extent that we can affect, it’s going to happen. So there are ways and means of moving forward on that.”
Hoyer, meanwhile, echoed President Obama, who expressed confidence Monday that Congress was “closer than ever before” to reaching agreement on the health-care reform bill.
“Everybody wants to see a health-care reform bill that they can vote for,” Hoyer said. “I don’t think there are any of you that have found anybody that says ‘I don’t want to do health-care reform.’”
But the majority leader clarified, however, that he was referring only to Democratic lawmakers and blasted congressional Republicans of wanting the bill to fail “without considering the needs of the American people.”
“I’m not talking about the Republican side,” Hoyer said. “I’m talking about our side of the aisle. On the Republican side of the aisle, as I’ve told you, they want us to fail.
“Their (Republicans’) interest is much more in making failure happen than progress for the American people,” he said.
Hoyer specifically cited Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)’s vocal opposition to the Democrat-sponsored health-care reform bill as evidence of Republican intentions, quoting DeMint as saying, “’If we re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.’”
According to Hoyer, DeMint’s comment “is consistent with the Luntz memo, and consistent with what, clearly, the Republicans are trying to do.”
Hoyer was referring to a strategy memo written by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, “The Language of Healthcare 2009,” which counseled the GOP with 10 points on how to frame its response to the Democratic health-care plan.
Ironically, Luntz’ memo is a Republican counterpart to a June 2008 memo by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake – “How to Talk About Health Care Reform” -- which counseled “progressives” (liberals) on what language to use to the American public to sell health-care reform.
Hoyer, who did not mention Lake’s strategy memo, did follow the strategy it laid out Tuesday, saying Republicans “were opposed to a health-care bill that, clearly, Americans want – and they have indicated that in poll after poll.”
“(Republicans) want us to fail notwithstanding the fact that our failure will be the failure to get the American public fully involve in the security of health-care coverage,” Hoyer said.
According the latest polls, however, American approval for President Obama’s handling of health-care reform has fallen to 49 per cent while disapproval has reached 44 per cent, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
In addition, a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 50 per cent of Americans disapprove while 44 per cent approve of Obama’s approach to health-care reform.
To the Members of the United States Senate:
http://conservativehq.com/chq-original/letter-to-senators/
We, the undersigned 156 conservative and constitutional cause leaders, activists and other concerned citizens, respectfully submit a statement in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.
Even President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Rejects His Views on the Constitution
But Confirmation Conversions Are Not Acceptable for Lifetime Appointments
It is historic, as far as we know, that a nominee to the Supreme Court has gone on record at her confirmation hearing to reject the underlying judicial philosophy of the President who made the nomination.
President Obama said his judicial nominee would be someone with "empathy" and "who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook.'' "That's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he said.
Top presidential advisor David Axelrod said in a May 26, 2009 interview that President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor because "he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his," which as applied to the law and constitutional principles was to "be ready to adapt them to a modern context."
In his opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions said, "I will not vote for and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against the parties before the court. In my view, such a philosophy is disqualifying."
In response to questioning from Sen. Jon Kyl about whether she agreed with the president's judicial philosophy, Judge Sotomayor replied, "No, sir, I wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law."
Some observers noted that judge Sotomayor appeared to have a "confirmation conversion" about following the law, not personal preferences.
Voters will have their chance to render their judgment about President Obama and his views of governing at the polls. If Judge Sotomayor were confirmed for the Supreme Court, however, her appointment would be for life.
We the undersigned believe that Judge Sotomayor did have a confirmation conversion, perhaps based on her realization that the judicial philosophy she shares with President Obama is in fact disqualifying for confirmation to our highest court, or perhaps because that judicial philosophy is unpopular. It is not an objectionable judicial philosophy that judges may check constitutional abuses by the other branches. However, a judicial philosophy that goes beyond the authority granted by Article III of the Constitution should be disqualifying.
Given that an appointment to the Supreme Court is for life, the statements by the President and his advisors, and Judge Soto mayor's pre-confirmation statements that conflicted with her confirmation testimony, we believe her judicial philosophy is indeed one that should disqualify her from appointment to the Supreme Court.
This is a matter of whether the nominee has demonstrated that she will abide by the role of the judiciary consistent with, and as constrained by, the Constitution.
Judge Sotomayor's rulings, whether dealing with the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, private property rights, criminal law, use of foreign law, race, equal protection and other areas of law, demonstrate that if she is consistently "empathetic" at all, it is in favor of government power, even beyond constitutional constraints.
Americans are witnessing how much more ideological President Obama is in office compared to "candidate" Obama. He has shown a disturbing disregard for the constitutional limits on presidential and other government power. While we do not hold Judge Sotomayor responsible for her sponsor's ideology, we do believe the Constitution would be placed in further jeopardy if she were confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.
We urge the Senate to reject Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor should remain a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where her decisions would be subject to the check of the Supreme Court.
President Obama should nominate another candidate whose views of judicial power are demonstrably consistent with Article III of the Constitution. That means the next nominee's views of the judiciary should be demonstrably inconsistent with the President's, whose views are not consistent with Article III, even before that nominee's confirmation hearings.
Respectfully,
(Organization name for identification purposes only)
Carolee Adams
President, Eagle Forum of New Jersey
Bob Barr
Liberty Guard
David Bergeron
Troup County
Georgia Right to Life
Morton C. Blackwell
Conservative Leadership PAC
L. Brent Bozell
Media Research Center
Floyd Brown
President, Western Center for Journalism
H. William Burgess
President, Aloha for All
Thomas Patrick Burke
The Wynnewood Institute
Kathryn Ciano
Vice President, Federalist Society
James N. Clymer
Constitution Party
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
The Beverly LaHaye Institute
Concerned Women for America
Kay R. Daly
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
David Y. Denholm
Public Service Research Council
Mario Diaz
Concerned Women for America
Elaine Donnelly
President, Center for Military Readiness
Dan Douglass
Interim Hawaii State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty
Brandon Dutcher
Chairman,
Oklahoma Center-Right Coalition
Fran Eaton
Editor, IllinoisReview.com
former State Pres. Eagle Forum of IL
Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
Richard W. C. Falknor
Maryland Center-Right Coalition
Mark Fitzgibbons, Esq.
American Target Advertising
Corinne Fuller
His Helping Hand Foundation
Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman, Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Diane Gramley
American Family Association of PA
Sandy Greiner
American Future Fund
William F. Harvey
Emeritus Dean & Professor
Indiana University School of Law
--Indianapolis
Robert Heckman
Capital City Partners
Dr. Carl Herbster
President, AdvanceUSA
Dee Hodges
Maryland Taxpayers Association
David James
President, The Liberty Committee
Patti Kanduch
CWFA of Montana
Richard Kimble
Young America's Foundation
Andrea Lafferty
Traditional Values Coalition
Jimmy LaSalvia
GOProud.org
Harry Levine
VictoryNH.com
Steve Lonegan
Recent NJ GOP gubernatorial candidate
Michelle Madd
CWFA of Colorado
Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom
Abraham H. Miller, Ph.D.
Abraham H. Miller Research
Chuck Muth
Citizen Outreach
Phyllis H. Nemeth
CWFA of California
Richard Norman
The Richard Norman Company
Kent Ostrander
The Family Foundation
Kathleen Patten
American Target Advertising
Ron Pearson
Council for America
Howard Phillips
The Conservative Caucus
Don Racheter
Iowa Wednesday Group
Paul A. Rahe
Hillsdale College
Alfred S. Regnery
The American Spectator
Beverly Roberts
CWFA of Texas
Ron Robinson
Young America's Foundation
Dick Rowland
Center-Right Coalition Meetings-Hawaii
Linda D. Schauer
CWFA of South Dakota
Howard Segermark
Coordinator, Committee for
Consumer-Centered Healthcare
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Traditional Values Coalition
Marcena Springer
North Texas CWFA
Judy Stemen
American Family Association
Hon. Steve Stockman
Congressman (ret.)
Presidential Trust
Herbert W. Titus
William J. Olson, P.C.
Piero A. Tozzi, Esq.
C-FAM Catholic Family
& Human Rights Institute
Richard A. Viguerie
ConservativeHQ.com
Mark Williamson
Founder & President
Federal Intercessors
Wendy Wright
Concerned Women for America
Craig Zinkoski
Central NJ/Ocean Co. ACT! For America!
Joshua & Kimberly Abbott
Concerned Citizens - Virginia
Jared Bristol
Concerned Citizen – Maine
Henry C. Clark
Concerned Citizen – New York
John Kekes
Concerned Citizen – New York
Robert J. Muckenhirn
Concerned Citizen – Virginia
Tracy Oetting
Concerned Citizen – Washington
Lauren Patten
Concerned Citizen – Texas
Donna Rastorfer
Concerned Citizen
Dr. Marvin & Elisabeth Schoenecke
Concerned Citizens – Missouri
LaNeil Wright Spivy
Concerned Citizen - Texas
Bret Ulibarri
Concerned Citizen – Massachusetts
Mary Helen Warren
Concerned Citizen - Massachusetts Gary W. Aldrich
Former senior FBI Special Agent
Bestselling author & Patrick Henry scholar
Michael Bass
Conservatives for Change
Helen Blackwell
Virginia Chairman, Eagle Forum
Kenneth Boehm
National Legal and Policy Center
Bill Brooks
North Carolina Family Policy Council
Mary Beth Brown
Author and Columnist
Sandra Puanani Burgess
Co-Founder & Vice President, Aloha for All
Dr. Paul Cameron
Family Research Institute
Kellyanne Conway, Esq.
The Polling Company, Inc.
WomanTrend
David Crowe
Restore America
Marjorie Dannenfelser
Susan B. Anthony List
Candace de Russy
National Review
Tanya Ditty
CWFA of Georgia
Michael P. Donnelly, Esq.
Adjunct Professor Patrick Henry College
Staff Counsel, HSLDA
Douglas S. Doudney
Coalition For Property Rights
Carol Dufrense
CWFA of Ohio
Michelle Easton
Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute
Barbara Elliott
Center for Renewal
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily
Don Feder
Don Feder Associates
Peter Flaherty
National Legal and Policy Center
Erin Gabel
CWFA of Ohio
Shari Goodman
Calabasas-West Valley ACT Chapter
Paul Gottfried
Raffensperger, Professor of Humanities
Elizabethtown College
William Greene, Ph.D.
President, RightMarch.com
Colin A. Hanna
Let Freedom Ring
Linda Harvey
President, Mission America
Mike Hodge
The Valley American
Deborah Honeycutt, MD
MHealthS, Inc.
Haven Howard
CWFA of Missouri
Phillip L. Jauregui
Judicial Action Group
Gary G. Kreep
United States Justice Foundation
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Tana-Lee
ACT! for America
Curt Levey
Committee for Justice
Micki Lewis
ACT-MIAMI
Tim Macy
Gun Owners of America
Jim Martin
60 Plus Association
Tom McClusky
FRCAction
Manny Miranda
Third Branch
Janne Myrdal
CWFA of North Dakota
C. Preston Noell, III
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
William J. Olson
William J. Olson, P.C.
Karl Ottosen
US Federation of Small Businesses
Lowell T. Patterson
Constitution Party
Tony Perkins
Family Research Council
Larry Pratt
Gun Owners of America
Bobbi Radeck
CWFA of Ohio
William Redpath
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
David A. Ridenour
The Nat. Center for Public Policy Research
Janet Robey
CWFA of Virginia
Allen Roth
Board of ACU
New York State Conservative Party
Austin Ruse
President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Nancy Schaefer
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Ilya Shapiro
Cato Institute
John M. Snyder
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Mathew D. Staver
Liberty Counsel
Liberty University School of Law
James A. Stever
Professor, University of Cincinnati
Matthew Taylor
Private Sector Solution Advocacy
Kerri Houston Toloczko
Institute for Liberty
Kathryn Ulibarri
Massachusetts Citizens For Life
Worcester Youth Coalition For Life
Carrie Walker
Director, CWFA of Michigan
William Wilson
Americans for Limited Government
Tom Winter
Eagle Publishing
Richard Ziser
Nevada Concerned Citizens
Bruce & Robin Bradley
Concerned Citizens – Alabama
Mario A. Calabrese
Concerned Citizen – District of Columbia
Roy D. Kaylor
MSGT USMC (Ret)
Donna Maxey
Concerned Citizen
Len Munsil, Esq.
Concerned Citizen – Arizona
Larry Passage
Concerned Citizen – New Jersey
Elfrieda Peninger
Concerned Citizen – Missouri
Edward Reott
Concerned Citizen - Utah
Ken & Cindi Slaughter
Concerned Citizens
Linda Stillings
Concerned Citizen
Mary Underdahl
Concerned Citizen - Utah
The following individuals signed the letter after it was sent to Senators:
Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy
Fr Frank Pavone
Priests for Life
Michael W. Grebe
Yvonne D. Trotter, Ph.D. Mark A. Trotter Irma Fiordalisi
Palin Ethics Investigation Lawyer's Revelation to FindLaw
It must be so painful for the Liberal Democrats, the "ACLU", as well as the Liberal TV and Print Media, to continue to pursue any and every effort to politically and financially destroy Sarah Palin at all cost. Sarah Palin is one of the most "honorable" individuals "ever" in public like. Sarah Palin is "right" on the "fiscal and social issues" of the day. Sarah Palin is so Blessed herself, and is able to communicate these Blessings to the masses of people. - oyh
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT: PAYING PALIN'S LEGAL FEES VIOLATES ALASKA LAW
(July 21, 2009) - Thomas Daniel, the lawyer hired by Alaska's Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint involving Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's legal defense, confirmed to FindLaw that a copy of his confidential report had somehow become public. Daniel said "I suspect the complainant released it, but don't know for sure." Daniel concluded in his report that probable cause exists to "believe payment of the Governor's legal fees by the Alaska Fund Trust will violate the [Alaska's] Ethics Act." Read more...
http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2009/07/palin-ethics-investigation-lawyer-tells-findlaw-i-suspect-the-complainant-released-report.html
Palin Ethics Investigation Lawyer Tells FindLaw: "I Suspect The Complainant Released" Report
By Joel Zand on July 21, 2009 7:37 PM | No TrackBacks
Thomas Daniel (inset) the lawyer hired by Alaska's Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint involving Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's legal defense fund set up to help pay the cost of defending allegations of misconduct while in
Thomas M. Daniel
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2078871_1?channel=LP
office, confirmed to FindLaw that a copy of his confidential report had somehow become public. Daniel said "I suspect the complainant released it, but don't know for sure."
Eagle River, Alaska resident Kim Chapman filed the ethics complaint against Gov. Palin on April 27, 2009, alleging that Palin's Alaska Fund Trust violated two Executive Branch ethics laws that 1) prohibit using an official position for personal gain, and 2) bar public officials from accepting gifts that seek to influence how official duties are performed.
"It is a copy of my report," Daniel told FindLaw, but emphasized that "the release was not authorized," and that "there was no deadline" to make it public." The only person capable of waiving the confidentiality provision to which he remained bound, Daniel stated in his report, is Gov. Palin.
The Palin Ethics Complaint Investigation Report's Conclusions and Recommendations
In his report, Daniel concluded that the trust set up to pay Palin's legal fees created:
probable cause to believe that payment of the Governor's legal fees by the Alaska Fund Trust will violate the [State's] Ethics Act prohibition against a public officer accepting gifts intended to influence performance of official duties.
He recommended that Gov. Palin could take corrective action "to resolve this [ethics] complaint without the necessity of a formal hearing." The recommendations included having Palin:
refuse to accept payment of her legal fees and costs from the Alaska Fund Trust and withdraw her authorization for the trust to be recognized as her 'official legal defense fund.' I also recommend that seek reimbursement from the state for the cost of defending the ethics complaints that have been dismissed.
Finally, Daniel urged Alaska's state legislature to weigh "amending the Ethics Act to require the state to reimburse a public official for legal fees and costs" for defending Ethics Act complaints that are ultimately dismissed.
You can read a copy of the report here, that was posted on the Anchorage Daily News home page:
Palin Ethics Complaint Report
Related Resources:
Investigator rules against Palin in ethics probe
Alaska Personnel Board
Thomas Daniel, the lawyer hired by Alaska's Personnel Board
Palin's Future Remains a Mystery, Reuters, (Jul. 9, 2009)
Palin seeks review of Monegan firing case Anchorage Daily News, (Sept. 3, 2008)
Related Resources
• Thomas Daniel, the lawyer who authored the ethics complaint report
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2078871_1?channel=LP
"The e-mail Bag"
AMA THOUGHTS ON THE STIMULUS PACKAGE
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new economic stimulus package.
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologist had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the
Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the
Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the
Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the
Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the ass holes in Washington ..
Friday, July 24, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090724
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"My Comments"
"There was an attempted coup in Honduras, but it was Zelaya who initiated it, not his opponents." -- columnist Mona Charen
"Daily Motivations"
People often say that motivation doesn't last. Well, neither does bathing – that's why we recommend it daily. -- Zig Ziglar
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"I am the light of the world. If you follow Me, you won't be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." (John 8:12)
Because our society has rejected God and His holy inspired Word as the standard for truth, we have lost our reference point for reality.
Our culture often defines truth based on public opinion polls. We live in a media culture of sizzle and hype which influences public thinking. Advertisers and spin-doctors are constantly at work to influence our thinking. Educational institutions promote diversified views at the expense of truth. Even many journalists are no longer satisfied with reporting the facts. Instead, they slant and often invent the news to fit their own interpretation and ambitions.
This is the nature of the world system controlled by Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44). These masters of deception, distortion, and manipulation take truth out of context or give only half-truths. Without His truth, we are left to grope about. Even many Christians have bought into these lies. But God's truth is a light that shows us the difference between falsehood and truth, and frees us to do what is right and good.
Every day, we make choices about what we want to do or perceive to be true. Only God can free us from the deceptions and distortions of the world's system. He has given us the Bible as a handbook for identifying truth, and His Spirit, the Counselor of Truth, within us as our Guide.
Like a powerful floodlight, God's truth will expose the foolishness and destructiveness of every myth promoted by the world. God is the only unchanging source of truth.
"The Patriot Post"
"I have no ambition to govern men. It is a painful and thankless office." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." -- Samuel Adams, letter to Elbridge Gerry, November 27, 1780
"As was the case with Ronald Reagan, who was also dismissed as a less than serious type, Sarah Palin has a quality that appeals to a broad base of Americans who sense the country is headed in the wrong direction. She has that much in common with another charismatic figure on the American scene -- Barack Obama -- even if his political and cultural leanings are quite the opposite of hers. The moral of the story: Politics, like Sarah Palin herself, is just full of surprises." -- columnist Paul Greenberg
"What is it about Palin that elicits such furious bipartisan Washington dismissiveness? After all, the polls show her to be tied with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the very early lead in the 2012 Republican primary. As an outspoken conservative with about an 80 percent favorable rating among Republicans and a high-40s percentage favorable plurality among independents, objectively she should be seen as quite competitive nationally compared with other Republicans, particularly given that Republicans are generically weak and that she has been targeted so viciously by the media." -- columnist Tony Blankley
"North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is 'concerned' about the situation. Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup." -- radio talk-show host Neal Boortz
THE DEMO-GOGUES
Not exactly peace through strength: "As the world's two leading nuclear powers, the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today. ... It is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way. ... So yes, I trust [Russian] President [Dmitri] Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow through on the agreements that are contained here today." -- President Barack Obama, negotiating away U.S. nuclear capabilities
"Find Law"
On The Waterfront: Hoboken, Secaucus Mayors and Brooklyn Rabbis Arrested
U.S. V. PETER CAMMARANO III AND MICHAEL SCHAFFER
(U.S. Dist. Ct., N.J., Jul 22, 2009) - Peter Cammarano, III, the Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor, and Dennis Elwell, Mayor of Secaucus, New Jersey, face high-level political corruption charges, along with more than 40 other people who were also charged with crimes ranging from corruption, extortion, money laundering, illegal money transmitting, to conspiracy to transport human organs. View charges, a list of defendants, and the 2006 criminal complaint against the government's reputed confidential witness who posed as a real estate developer to help the FBI in the case. Read more...
http://blogs.findlaw..com/courtside/2009/07/on-the-waterfront-nj-corruption-case-charges-hoboken-secaucus-mayors.html
Related Resources
• Peter Cammarano, III's Thomson Legal Record
"The Web"
We The People Stimulus Package
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
Listen to what happens to the elderly under Obamacare, (euthanasia)
Is this what you want for yourself or your parents???
http://tw8.us/if
Obama Falsely Claims There Are 47 Million Uninsured Americans
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - In a nationally televised primetime press conference tonight, President Barack Obama falsely claimed there are 47 million Americans without health insurance.
This inflated claim of the number of uninsured Americans was even higher than the false claim of 46 million uninsured Americans that the president’s Council of Economic Advisers made last month.
The Census Bureau says that there are only 35.92 million uninsured Americans and that this number includes 9.1 million people who earn more than $75,000 a year and simply choose not to purchase insurance.
“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance,” Obama said in a prepared statement at the start of his Wednesday night press conference. “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job.”
But Obama’s claim of 47 million uninsured is not supported by the Census Bureau report, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” which was published in August 2008 and is the government’s most up-to-date official report on the number of uninsured in the United States.
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was declining.
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said, there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
On June 2, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report entitled, “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform.” The report falsely claimed that there were 46 million Americans who lacked health insurance--as opposed to the 47 million claimed by the president tonight.
“Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance,” said the CEA report.
CEA Chair Christina Romer published an op-ed on Yahoo! News the same day that made the same false claim. “Health care expenditures in this country are currently 18 percent of GDP and, without change, will keep rising, until they account for nearly one-third of our total output by 2040,” wrote Romer. “Even with this exorbitant bill, about 46 million Americans lack health insurance coverage today, and this number is predicted to rise to 72 million over the next three decades.”
Like the CEA report and commentary by CEA Chair Romer, President Obama’s inflated claim of the number of uninsured Americans was not an off-the-cuff remark. It came in the prepared text at the beginning of the president's press conference that should have been checked and vetted by White House staff.
The president cited no source for his claim that there are 47 million uninsured Americans.
Since the White House first falsely claimed in June that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, CNSNews.com has reported on the correct Census Bureau figure on multiple occasions. Radio show host Mark Levin has also repeatedly pointed out the discrepancy between the White House claim of 46 million uninsured Americans and the Census Bureau’s assertion that almost 10 million of that number are not Americans but foreigners who happened to be present in the United States in 2007.
Each year in August, the Census Bureau releases an annual report citing the number of uninsured—“Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.” The next report should be released next month, reporting the number of uninsured for 2008.
The numbers in the new report—including the number of foreigners uninsured in the United States—could play into the health-care reform debate, especially if a bill is not passed by Congress before the August recess.
The Census report released in 2005, said there were 45.82 million uninsured people in the United States in 2004 of which 9.54 million were foreigners. This means that the number of uninsured Americans declined from 36.28 to 35.92 between 2004 and 2007.
Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured foreigners in the United States increased by 190,000 during the same period.
Inside The Health Care Bill
Walter Olson
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/medicare-republicans-reform-bill-opinions-contributors-walter-olson.html
A trial lawyer power grab that may unleash a flood of Medicare lawsuits.
Just before the House leadership's 794-page health care reform bill went to a Ways & Means markup last Thursday, a remarkable provision was slipped in that amounts to one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. Republicans managed to fend it off for the moment--but don't be surprised if it shows up again down the road in some form.
The provision would have drastically widened the scope of lawsuits against what are known as Medicare third-party defendants. In the simplest scenario, Medicare has paid the bills of someone injured in, say, a car accident, and then learns that the beneficiary has successfully sued and obtained damages from the other driver. Sometimes at this point Medicare (i.e., the government) demands that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement toward the cost of the health care. Under some conditions, however, it is also free to file its own lawsuit to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up covering the same medical bills twice). It might file suit directly if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.
For some time now, the federal government has been stepping up its pursuit of money from these defendants. The language slipped into the health bill would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new, namely allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government--without asking permission--and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a "qui tam" procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.
It gets worse. Language in the bill would permit the lawyers to file at least some sorts of Medicare recovery actions based on "any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means." This reads very much as if an attempt is being made to lay the groundwork for claims against new classes of defendants who might not be proved liable in an individual case but are responsible in a "statistical" sense. The best known such controversies are over whether suppliers of products such as alcohol, calorie-laden foods or guns should be compelled to pay compensation for society-wide patterns of illness or injury.
A few other highlights of the provision:
--It would knock out a significant current barrier to litigation by doing away with a rule that restricts the filing of a Medicare suit until after a previous "judgment," that is to say, after the success of an earlier lawsuit establishing responsibility for the injury.
--Damages would double in cases of "intentional tort or other intentional wrongdoing."
--"Any person" could bring the action, that is, not just a lawyer representing the Medicare recipient, and the bounty would be a rich one, 30% plus expenses. Even if the federal government itself intervened and insisted on taking over the lawsuit, the bounty hunter would still get a minimum of 20%, perhaps as reward for winning the race to the courthouse. No one other than the federal government could oust the first-to-file lawyer from control of the action, so other private lawyers who lost the race to the courthouse would be out of luck. And the lawyer could settle the suit with the designated defendants "notwithstanding the objections of the United States"--that is, the objections of the entity on whose behalf it was supposedly filed--if a court so agreed.
--Medicare would have to cooperate with the private lawyers, whether or not the government joined or approved of the action, by handing over various documents useful to them.
For the moment, at least, we've dodged the bullet. Some Republicans on the committee spotted the issue and raised strong protests, and by the end of Thursday, Democratic managers had agreed to withdraw the provision. That still provides no guarantee that it will not rear its head at some later stage in the process that proponents judge more favorable to their designs.
The idea is truly atrocious. Even when it comes to garden-variety torts, there are many entirely legitimate reasons why federal lawyers might not decide to pursue Medicare recovery from every possible defendant. To take but one example, they might have scruples about suing peripheral defendants who might be made to cough up settlement money to avoid the costs of litigation but against whom liability was doubtful. Freelance private lawyers could and often would sue everyone in sight and employ the most hardball tactics along the way. If the language about epidemiological and statistical evidence is indeed meant to pave the way for future suits against liquor, gun or cheeseburger purveyors, it represents a stealth attempt to restore (via fine print) a lawyerly dream that the courts have almost uniformly rejected over the past decade, as well as personally enrich lawyers with fees that could soar beyond even those of the scandalous tobacco-Medicaid litigation.
It's worth recording that Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat long allied with trial lawyers, took the lead arguing for the measure at the markup session, while critical questioning from Republicans Dave Camp of Michigan and Eric Cantor of Virginia helped shoot the idea down. How many other surprises lay undiscovered in this monster enactment--and how many of them do we risk learning about only after they pass into law?
Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and edits Overlawyered.com, where an earlier version of this appeared.
'Scofflaw' Obama Grudge Against Cambridge Police?
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_parking_tickets/2009/07/23/239549.html?s=al&promo_code=8406-1
One reason Barack Obama may think the Cambridge Police Department is "stupid" is that he has a grudge against the law enforcement agency.
Obama, who attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991, lived in Cambridge, and apparently didn't like the fact he was frequently hit with parking tickets.
In all Obama received 17 tickets for parking violations -- and never paid 15 of them until he was exposed by a local Massachusetts newspaper as a scofflaw.
According to a 2007 Associated Press story, Obama was a parking ticket deadbeat for more than a decade -- and only felt the need to pay the 15 outstanding parking tickets as his presidential campaign began in earnest in 2007.
Here is the Associated Press story detailing Obama's negligence:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.
The Illinois Senator shelled out $375 in January – two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign – to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.
The story was first reported Wednesday by The Somerville News.
Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, mostly for parking in a bus stop, parking without a resident permit and failing to pay the meter, records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show.
He incurred $140 in fines and $260 in late fees in Cambridge in all, but he paid $25 for two of the tickets in February 1990.
Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, dismissed the tickets as not relevant.
"He didn't owe that much and what he did owe, he paid," Psaki said on Wednesday. "Many people have parking tickets and late fees. All the parking tickets and late fees were paid in full."
U.S. investigates KSU faculty member
By Carol Biliczky
Beacon Journal staff writer
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/51438927.html
The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged Wednesday it is investigating a Kent State faculty member who has been tied to a jihadist news service and who has called President George W. Bush a ''cocaine cowboy.''
David Lee, resident agent in charge of the Akron office of the Secret Service, said Julio Pino was ''an individual who came to our attention who needed to be interviewed.''
He said someone from his agency went to Pino's home on Morris Road in Kent in the ''ongoing'' investigation. He declined to comment further.
The Secret Service is a federal law-enforcement agency that protects and investigates threats to national leaders, including the president.
A clerk in the office of the U.S. District Court in Akron said late Wednesday afternoon that there was no record of a search warrant for Pino's home.
Search warrants can be sealed by the court, in which case the clerk's office would not have access to it or any record of whether it exists, the clerk said.
Pino did not return a call to his home.
He is a native of Cuba and Muslim with controversial views. In 2007, KSU President Lester Lefton received about 100 e-mails and calls lobbying for Pino's ouster after news of his views was publicized.
On Wednesday, KSU spokesman Tom Neumann said the university did not know anything about an investigation of Pino and that the Secret Service had not searched Pino's office.
In March 2007, a KSU official said that Pino, 48, had acknowledged providing news stories to a jihadist Web site but had stopped.
The Web site provided ''battle dispatches, training materials and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide,'' according to its home page. The site since has been taken down.
The site included a letter from ''Lover of Angels'' that was identical to a letter Pino wrote in 2006 to the KSU student newspaper the Daily Kent Stater.
''The ill will done to Muslim nations must be requited,'' the letter read. ''The Muslim child does not cry alone; the Muslim woman does not cry alone; and the Muslim man is already at your gates.''
In another letter to the student newspaper that year, Pino called Bush a ''cocaine cowboy . . . who has added an extra 100,000 corpses to the pile of brown-colored corpses.''
He told the Beacon Journal in March 2007 he ''absolutely'' does not support jihad, a Muslim word for the struggle in the name of Allah. He declined to comment when asked if he was ''Lover of Angels.''
In November 2007, the university demoted the head of Pino's history department for authorizing a six-week, mid-semester leave for Pino to the United Arab Emirates. Pino sought to learn Arabic to pursue his research specialty, African Muslim slaves in Brazil who wrote in Arabic.
The university said the department chair did not follow KSU procedure and called Pino abruptly back from his trip.
Pino joined KSU in 1992. He has tenure, or virtual lifetime employment.
Carol Biliczky can be reached at 330-996-3729 or cbiliczky@thebeaconjournal.com. Beacon Journal staff writers Jim Carney and Ed Meyer contributed to this report.
The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged Wednesday it is investigating a Kent State faculty member who has been tied to a jihadist news service and who has called President George W. Bush a ''cocaine cowboy.''
David Lee, resident agent in charge of the Akron office of the Secret Service, said Julio Pino was ''an individual who came to our attention who needed to be interviewed.''
He said someone from his agency went to Pino's home on Morris Road in Kent in the ''ongoing'' investigation. He declined to comment further.
The Secret Service is a federal law-enforcement agency that protects and investigates threats to national leaders, including the president.
A clerk in the office of the U.S. District Court in Akron said late Wednesday afternoon that there was no record of a search warrant for Pino's home.
Search warrants can be sealed by the court, in which case the clerk's office would not have access to it or any record of whether it exists, the clerk said.
Pino did not return a call to his home.
He is a native of Cuba and Muslim with controversial views. In 2007, KSU President Lester Lefton received about 100 e-mails and calls lobbying for Pino's ouster after news of his views was publicized.
On Wednesday, KSU spokesman Tom Neumann said the university did not know anything about an investigation of Pino and that the Secret Service had not searched Pino's office.
In March 2007, a KSU official said that Pino, 48, had acknowledged providing news stories to a jihadist Web site but had stopped.
The Web site provided ''battle dispatches, training materials and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide,'' according to its home page. The site since has been taken down.
The site included a letter from ''Lover of Angels'' that was identical to a letter Pino wrote in 2006 to the KSU student newspaper the Daily Kent Stater.
''The ill will done to Muslim nations must be requited,'' the letter read. ''The Muslim child does not cry alone; the Muslim woman does not cry alone; and the Muslim man is already at your gates.''
In another letter to the student newspaper that year, Pino called Bush a ''cocaine cowboy . . . who has added an extra 100,000 corpses to the pile of brown-colored corpses.''
He told the Beacon Journal in March 2007 he ''absolutely'' does not support jihad, a Muslim word for the struggle in the name of Allah. He declined to comment when asked if he was ''Lover of Angels.''
In November 2007, the university demoted the head of Pino's history department for authorizing a six-week, mid-semester leave for Pino to the United Arab Emirates. Pino sought to learn Arabic to pursue his research specialty, African Muslim slaves in Brazil who wrote in Arabic.
The university said the department chair did not follow KSU procedure and called Pino abruptly back from his trip.
Pino joined KSU in 1992. He has tenure, or virtual lifetime employment.
Postal Services New Stamp
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-301941.htm
The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama. The stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings: The stamp is in perfect condition and nothing is wrong with the adhesive. People are spitting on the wrong side.
Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino
Here's something you don't see every day. Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis and Fats Domino - three of the greatest ivory ticklers of their day - playing pianos on the same stage at the same time. Brace yourself and make sure your sound is on because this show will rock you out of your seat.
This is a once in a lifetime appearance and one you will not forget! Ron Woods of the Rolling Stones, Carl Perkins (Blue Suede Shoes) and others playing back-up, a cameo appearance by Rod Stewart and all directed by Paul Schaeffer.
http://vodpod.com/watch/1116988-ray-charles-jerry-lee-lewis-fats-domino
Michelle Obama Takes Girls to London for Fish and Chips
Posted by: Mike's America
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/09/michelle-obama-takes-girls-to-london-for-fish-and-chips/
A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!
Michelle One
On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.
We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:
“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”
Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.
The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:
Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.
The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”
Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair. The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip!
God have mercy on America!
http://adjunct.diodon349.com/Christian/god_have_mercy_on_america.htm
After a recent study of the book of Isaiah in the Bible, I came to the same conclusion as this Oklahoma preacher. I have been praying daily for our nation to return to God. I now ask all of you,my email buddies to do the same.
I remember reading about the children of Israel who turned from God time and time again, only to realize their mistake and pray for forgiveness. Each time, God would forgive them and they would walk with him for a time. So, I am going to ask you to join me in praying for our nation every day. Please read the text below.. God is in control.
May God Have Mercy On America; Protect Our Troops
When we were in Texarkana last week, there were signs in people's yards that said, " America , prayer is our only hope" - with 2 Chron. 7:14 underneath. We certainly need God's help!
I have no idea who started this, but I certainly agree with this e-mail. I heard a preacher on TV tonight who said if we pray for our nation that things will turn around.
After a day of contemplation and soul searching, I have decided to reach out to my friends and relatives and ask you to do something that has been troubling me for a long time.
Our nation is/has been on the slippery slope for a long time. If you look around you will find corruption, greed, moral decay, and a steady move away from the things that made us great. The principles upon which this nation was founded are no longer our backbone.
However, we can reverse this trend.
2 Chron. 7:14 in God's Word, He states,
"If my people who are called by my
name will humble themselves and pray
and seek my face and turn from their
wicked ways, then I will hear from
heaven and will forgive their sin and
heal their land."
I am convinced that we must pray for our nation and its leaders and ask for forgiveness. So I ask you to join me in this plea to our Lord.
Would you please send this to people in your address book? Ask them to pray EVERY DAY. (25 to the 5th power is 9,765,625 people.) IMAGINE if each person reaches TEN others... Or all TWENTY FIVE!
If you do and they comply, we will lift up millions and millions of prayers a day to our Creator. He will hear us, and in faith will answer.
Here's a quote from Ronald Reagan:
"If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
I truly believe this is why the United States of America is in the shape it's in today.
Most people have forgotten that we are ONE NATION UNDER GOD! Let us as Christians stand up and remind people of this.
MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS
Our leaning side
Every time I am asked to pray, I think of the old deacon who always prayed, 'Lord, prop us up on our leanin' side.'After hearing him pray that prayer many times, someone asked him why he prayed that prayer so fervently.
He answered, 'Well sir, you see, it's like this... I got an old barn out back. It's been there a long time; it's withstood a lot ofweather; it's gone through a lot of storms, and it's stood for many years.
It's still standing. But one day I noticed it was leaning to one side a bit.
So I went and got some pine poles and propped it up on its leaning side so it wouldn't fall.
Then I got to thinking about that and how much I was like that old barn. I've been around a long time.
I've withstood a lot of life's storms. I've withstood a lot of bad weather in life, I've withstood a lot of hard times,and I'm still standing too. But I find myself leaning to one side from time to time, so I like to ask the Lord to prop us up on our leaning side, 'cause I figure a lot of us get to leaning at times.
Sometimes we get to leaning toward anger, leaning toward bitterness, leaning toward hatred, leaning toward cussing, leaning toward a lot of things that we shouldn't . So we need to pray, 'Lord, prop us up on our leaning side, so we will stand straight and tall again, to glorify the Lord.''
"The e-mail Bag"
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
Don't wait for 6 strong men to take you to church.
GRANDPA'S WISDOM
http://home.att.net/~scorh3/GrandpaWisdom.html
Whether a man winds up with a nest egg or a goose egg depends a lot on the kind of chick he marries.
Trouble in marriage often starts when a man gets so busy earnin' his salt that he forgets his sugar.
Too many couples marry for better or for worse, but not for good.
When a man marries a woman, they become one; but the trouble starts when they try to decide which one.
If a man has enough horse sense to treat his wife like a thoroughbred, she will never turn into an old nag.
Judging from the specimens they pick for husbands, it's no wonder that brides often blush.
On anniversaries, the wise husband always forgets the past - but never the present.
A foolish husband says to his wife: "Honey, you stick to the washin', ironin', cookin', and scrubbin'. No wife of mine is gonna work."
The bonds of matrimony are a good investment only when the interest is kept up.
Many girls like to marry a military man -- he can cook, sew, make beds, and is in good health. And he's already used to taking orders.
Grandpappy and his wife were discussing their 50th wedding anniversary, she said, "Shall I kill a chicken tonight?" "Naw," said Grandpappy, why blame a bird for something that happened 50 years ago."
I need a small favor : Vacation Time
I need a small favor… if it’s not too much trouble. I am going away on vacation and I need a friend to come over to water my plants while I am gone. In the hot weather they’ll probably need water twice a day. Thanks a lot. I’ll send you a postcard. I’ve attached a photo for your reference.
The ladder is on the side of the house.
I’m not sure where the photo originated from. The picture and letter have been floating around the internet. Does anyone know where the picture came from? I feel compelled to give credit where credit is surely due and that’s to both the photographer and letter writer. This was too cute. I think it’d take a fire hose to water those flowers.
"My Comments"
"There was an attempted coup in Honduras, but it was Zelaya who initiated it, not his opponents." -- columnist Mona Charen
"Daily Motivations"
People often say that motivation doesn't last. Well, neither does bathing – that's why we recommend it daily. -- Zig Ziglar
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"I am the light of the world. If you follow Me, you won't be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." (John 8:12)
Because our society has rejected God and His holy inspired Word as the standard for truth, we have lost our reference point for reality.
Our culture often defines truth based on public opinion polls. We live in a media culture of sizzle and hype which influences public thinking. Advertisers and spin-doctors are constantly at work to influence our thinking. Educational institutions promote diversified views at the expense of truth. Even many journalists are no longer satisfied with reporting the facts. Instead, they slant and often invent the news to fit their own interpretation and ambitions.
This is the nature of the world system controlled by Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44). These masters of deception, distortion, and manipulation take truth out of context or give only half-truths. Without His truth, we are left to grope about. Even many Christians have bought into these lies. But God's truth is a light that shows us the difference between falsehood and truth, and frees us to do what is right and good.
Every day, we make choices about what we want to do or perceive to be true. Only God can free us from the deceptions and distortions of the world's system. He has given us the Bible as a handbook for identifying truth, and His Spirit, the Counselor of Truth, within us as our Guide.
Like a powerful floodlight, God's truth will expose the foolishness and destructiveness of every myth promoted by the world. God is the only unchanging source of truth.
"The Patriot Post"
"I have no ambition to govern men. It is a painful and thankless office." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." -- Samuel Adams, letter to Elbridge Gerry, November 27, 1780
"As was the case with Ronald Reagan, who was also dismissed as a less than serious type, Sarah Palin has a quality that appeals to a broad base of Americans who sense the country is headed in the wrong direction. She has that much in common with another charismatic figure on the American scene -- Barack Obama -- even if his political and cultural leanings are quite the opposite of hers. The moral of the story: Politics, like Sarah Palin herself, is just full of surprises." -- columnist Paul Greenberg
"What is it about Palin that elicits such furious bipartisan Washington dismissiveness? After all, the polls show her to be tied with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the very early lead in the 2012 Republican primary. As an outspoken conservative with about an 80 percent favorable rating among Republicans and a high-40s percentage favorable plurality among independents, objectively she should be seen as quite competitive nationally compared with other Republicans, particularly given that Republicans are generically weak and that she has been targeted so viciously by the media." -- columnist Tony Blankley
"North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is 'concerned' about the situation. Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup." -- radio talk-show host Neal Boortz
THE DEMO-GOGUES
Not exactly peace through strength: "As the world's two leading nuclear powers, the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today. ... It is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way. ... So yes, I trust [Russian] President [Dmitri] Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow through on the agreements that are contained here today." -- President Barack Obama, negotiating away U.S. nuclear capabilities
"Find Law"
On The Waterfront: Hoboken, Secaucus Mayors and Brooklyn Rabbis Arrested
U.S. V. PETER CAMMARANO III AND MICHAEL SCHAFFER
(U.S. Dist. Ct., N.J., Jul 22, 2009) - Peter Cammarano, III, the Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor, and Dennis Elwell, Mayor of Secaucus, New Jersey, face high-level political corruption charges, along with more than 40 other people who were also charged with crimes ranging from corruption, extortion, money laundering, illegal money transmitting, to conspiracy to transport human organs. View charges, a list of defendants, and the 2006 criminal complaint against the government's reputed confidential witness who posed as a real estate developer to help the FBI in the case. Read more...
http://blogs.findlaw..com/courtside/2009/07/on-the-waterfront-nj-corruption-case-charges-hoboken-secaucus-mayors.html
Related Resources
• Peter Cammarano, III's Thomson Legal Record
"The Web"
We The People Stimulus Package
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
Listen to what happens to the elderly under Obamacare, (euthanasia)
Is this what you want for yourself or your parents???
http://tw8.us/if
Obama Falsely Claims There Are 47 Million Uninsured Americans
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - In a nationally televised primetime press conference tonight, President Barack Obama falsely claimed there are 47 million Americans without health insurance.
This inflated claim of the number of uninsured Americans was even higher than the false claim of 46 million uninsured Americans that the president’s Council of Economic Advisers made last month.
The Census Bureau says that there are only 35.92 million uninsured Americans and that this number includes 9.1 million people who earn more than $75,000 a year and simply choose not to purchase insurance.
“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance,” Obama said in a prepared statement at the start of his Wednesday night press conference. “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job.”
But Obama’s claim of 47 million uninsured is not supported by the Census Bureau report, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” which was published in August 2008 and is the government’s most up-to-date official report on the number of uninsured in the United States.
This Census report says that within the borders of the United States as of 2007 there were 45.65 people without health insurance. But this number, according to the Census Bureau, included 9.73 million foreigners, leaving only 35.92 Americans who were uninsured.
The Census Bureau also said that the number of uninsured people was declining.
“Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007,” said the Census Bureau report.
Among the uninsured in the United States, the Census Bureau said, there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance.
On June 2, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report entitled, “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform.” The report falsely claimed that there were 46 million Americans who lacked health insurance--as opposed to the 47 million claimed by the president tonight.
“Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance,” said the CEA report.
CEA Chair Christina Romer published an op-ed on Yahoo! News the same day that made the same false claim. “Health care expenditures in this country are currently 18 percent of GDP and, without change, will keep rising, until they account for nearly one-third of our total output by 2040,” wrote Romer. “Even with this exorbitant bill, about 46 million Americans lack health insurance coverage today, and this number is predicted to rise to 72 million over the next three decades.”
Like the CEA report and commentary by CEA Chair Romer, President Obama’s inflated claim of the number of uninsured Americans was not an off-the-cuff remark. It came in the prepared text at the beginning of the president's press conference that should have been checked and vetted by White House staff.
The president cited no source for his claim that there are 47 million uninsured Americans.
Since the White House first falsely claimed in June that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, CNSNews.com has reported on the correct Census Bureau figure on multiple occasions. Radio show host Mark Levin has also repeatedly pointed out the discrepancy between the White House claim of 46 million uninsured Americans and the Census Bureau’s assertion that almost 10 million of that number are not Americans but foreigners who happened to be present in the United States in 2007.
Each year in August, the Census Bureau releases an annual report citing the number of uninsured—“Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.” The next report should be released next month, reporting the number of uninsured for 2008.
The numbers in the new report—including the number of foreigners uninsured in the United States—could play into the health-care reform debate, especially if a bill is not passed by Congress before the August recess.
The Census report released in 2005, said there were 45.82 million uninsured people in the United States in 2004 of which 9.54 million were foreigners. This means that the number of uninsured Americans declined from 36.28 to 35.92 between 2004 and 2007.
Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured foreigners in the United States increased by 190,000 during the same period.
Inside The Health Care Bill
Walter Olson
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/medicare-republicans-reform-bill-opinions-contributors-walter-olson.html
A trial lawyer power grab that may unleash a flood of Medicare lawsuits.
Just before the House leadership's 794-page health care reform bill went to a Ways & Means markup last Thursday, a remarkable provision was slipped in that amounts to one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. Republicans managed to fend it off for the moment--but don't be surprised if it shows up again down the road in some form.
The provision would have drastically widened the scope of lawsuits against what are known as Medicare third-party defendants. In the simplest scenario, Medicare has paid the bills of someone injured in, say, a car accident, and then learns that the beneficiary has successfully sued and obtained damages from the other driver. Sometimes at this point Medicare (i.e., the government) demands that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement toward the cost of the health care. Under some conditions, however, it is also free to file its own lawsuit to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up covering the same medical bills twice). It might file suit directly if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.
For some time now, the federal government has been stepping up its pursuit of money from these defendants. The language slipped into the health bill would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new, namely allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government--without asking permission--and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a "qui tam" procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.
It gets worse. Language in the bill would permit the lawyers to file at least some sorts of Medicare recovery actions based on "any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means." This reads very much as if an attempt is being made to lay the groundwork for claims against new classes of defendants who might not be proved liable in an individual case but are responsible in a "statistical" sense. The best known such controversies are over whether suppliers of products such as alcohol, calorie-laden foods or guns should be compelled to pay compensation for society-wide patterns of illness or injury.
A few other highlights of the provision:
--It would knock out a significant current barrier to litigation by doing away with a rule that restricts the filing of a Medicare suit until after a previous "judgment," that is to say, after the success of an earlier lawsuit establishing responsibility for the injury.
--Damages would double in cases of "intentional tort or other intentional wrongdoing."
--"Any person" could bring the action, that is, not just a lawyer representing the Medicare recipient, and the bounty would be a rich one, 30% plus expenses. Even if the federal government itself intervened and insisted on taking over the lawsuit, the bounty hunter would still get a minimum of 20%, perhaps as reward for winning the race to the courthouse. No one other than the federal government could oust the first-to-file lawyer from control of the action, so other private lawyers who lost the race to the courthouse would be out of luck. And the lawyer could settle the suit with the designated defendants "notwithstanding the objections of the United States"--that is, the objections of the entity on whose behalf it was supposedly filed--if a court so agreed.
--Medicare would have to cooperate with the private lawyers, whether or not the government joined or approved of the action, by handing over various documents useful to them.
For the moment, at least, we've dodged the bullet. Some Republicans on the committee spotted the issue and raised strong protests, and by the end of Thursday, Democratic managers had agreed to withdraw the provision. That still provides no guarantee that it will not rear its head at some later stage in the process that proponents judge more favorable to their designs.
The idea is truly atrocious. Even when it comes to garden-variety torts, there are many entirely legitimate reasons why federal lawyers might not decide to pursue Medicare recovery from every possible defendant. To take but one example, they might have scruples about suing peripheral defendants who might be made to cough up settlement money to avoid the costs of litigation but against whom liability was doubtful. Freelance private lawyers could and often would sue everyone in sight and employ the most hardball tactics along the way. If the language about epidemiological and statistical evidence is indeed meant to pave the way for future suits against liquor, gun or cheeseburger purveyors, it represents a stealth attempt to restore (via fine print) a lawyerly dream that the courts have almost uniformly rejected over the past decade, as well as personally enrich lawyers with fees that could soar beyond even those of the scandalous tobacco-Medicaid litigation.
It's worth recording that Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat long allied with trial lawyers, took the lead arguing for the measure at the markup session, while critical questioning from Republicans Dave Camp of Michigan and Eric Cantor of Virginia helped shoot the idea down. How many other surprises lay undiscovered in this monster enactment--and how many of them do we risk learning about only after they pass into law?
Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and edits Overlawyered.com, where an earlier version of this appeared.
'Scofflaw' Obama Grudge Against Cambridge Police?
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_parking_tickets/2009/07/23/239549.html?s=al&promo_code=8406-1
One reason Barack Obama may think the Cambridge Police Department is "stupid" is that he has a grudge against the law enforcement agency.
Obama, who attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991, lived in Cambridge, and apparently didn't like the fact he was frequently hit with parking tickets.
In all Obama received 17 tickets for parking violations -- and never paid 15 of them until he was exposed by a local Massachusetts newspaper as a scofflaw.
According to a 2007 Associated Press story, Obama was a parking ticket deadbeat for more than a decade -- and only felt the need to pay the 15 outstanding parking tickets as his presidential campaign began in earnest in 2007.
Here is the Associated Press story detailing Obama's negligence:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.
The Illinois Senator shelled out $375 in January – two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign – to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.
The story was first reported Wednesday by The Somerville News.
Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, mostly for parking in a bus stop, parking without a resident permit and failing to pay the meter, records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show.
He incurred $140 in fines and $260 in late fees in Cambridge in all, but he paid $25 for two of the tickets in February 1990.
Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, dismissed the tickets as not relevant.
"He didn't owe that much and what he did owe, he paid," Psaki said on Wednesday. "Many people have parking tickets and late fees. All the parking tickets and late fees were paid in full."
U.S. investigates KSU faculty member
By Carol Biliczky
Beacon Journal staff writer
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/51438927.html
The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged Wednesday it is investigating a Kent State faculty member who has been tied to a jihadist news service and who has called President George W. Bush a ''cocaine cowboy.''
David Lee, resident agent in charge of the Akron office of the Secret Service, said Julio Pino was ''an individual who came to our attention who needed to be interviewed.''
He said someone from his agency went to Pino's home on Morris Road in Kent in the ''ongoing'' investigation. He declined to comment further.
The Secret Service is a federal law-enforcement agency that protects and investigates threats to national leaders, including the president.
A clerk in the office of the U.S. District Court in Akron said late Wednesday afternoon that there was no record of a search warrant for Pino's home.
Search warrants can be sealed by the court, in which case the clerk's office would not have access to it or any record of whether it exists, the clerk said.
Pino did not return a call to his home.
He is a native of Cuba and Muslim with controversial views. In 2007, KSU President Lester Lefton received about 100 e-mails and calls lobbying for Pino's ouster after news of his views was publicized.
On Wednesday, KSU spokesman Tom Neumann said the university did not know anything about an investigation of Pino and that the Secret Service had not searched Pino's office.
In March 2007, a KSU official said that Pino, 48, had acknowledged providing news stories to a jihadist Web site but had stopped.
The Web site provided ''battle dispatches, training materials and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide,'' according to its home page. The site since has been taken down.
The site included a letter from ''Lover of Angels'' that was identical to a letter Pino wrote in 2006 to the KSU student newspaper the Daily Kent Stater.
''The ill will done to Muslim nations must be requited,'' the letter read. ''The Muslim child does not cry alone; the Muslim woman does not cry alone; and the Muslim man is already at your gates.''
In another letter to the student newspaper that year, Pino called Bush a ''cocaine cowboy . . . who has added an extra 100,000 corpses to the pile of brown-colored corpses.''
He told the Beacon Journal in March 2007 he ''absolutely'' does not support jihad, a Muslim word for the struggle in the name of Allah. He declined to comment when asked if he was ''Lover of Angels.''
In November 2007, the university demoted the head of Pino's history department for authorizing a six-week, mid-semester leave for Pino to the United Arab Emirates. Pino sought to learn Arabic to pursue his research specialty, African Muslim slaves in Brazil who wrote in Arabic.
The university said the department chair did not follow KSU procedure and called Pino abruptly back from his trip.
Pino joined KSU in 1992. He has tenure, or virtual lifetime employment.
Carol Biliczky can be reached at 330-996-3729 or cbiliczky@thebeaconjournal.com. Beacon Journal staff writers Jim Carney and Ed Meyer contributed to this report.
The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged Wednesday it is investigating a Kent State faculty member who has been tied to a jihadist news service and who has called President George W. Bush a ''cocaine cowboy.''
David Lee, resident agent in charge of the Akron office of the Secret Service, said Julio Pino was ''an individual who came to our attention who needed to be interviewed.''
He said someone from his agency went to Pino's home on Morris Road in Kent in the ''ongoing'' investigation. He declined to comment further.
The Secret Service is a federal law-enforcement agency that protects and investigates threats to national leaders, including the president.
A clerk in the office of the U.S. District Court in Akron said late Wednesday afternoon that there was no record of a search warrant for Pino's home.
Search warrants can be sealed by the court, in which case the clerk's office would not have access to it or any record of whether it exists, the clerk said.
Pino did not return a call to his home.
He is a native of Cuba and Muslim with controversial views. In 2007, KSU President Lester Lefton received about 100 e-mails and calls lobbying for Pino's ouster after news of his views was publicized.
On Wednesday, KSU spokesman Tom Neumann said the university did not know anything about an investigation of Pino and that the Secret Service had not searched Pino's office.
In March 2007, a KSU official said that Pino, 48, had acknowledged providing news stories to a jihadist Web site but had stopped.
The Web site provided ''battle dispatches, training materials and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide,'' according to its home page. The site since has been taken down.
The site included a letter from ''Lover of Angels'' that was identical to a letter Pino wrote in 2006 to the KSU student newspaper the Daily Kent Stater.
''The ill will done to Muslim nations must be requited,'' the letter read. ''The Muslim child does not cry alone; the Muslim woman does not cry alone; and the Muslim man is already at your gates.''
In another letter to the student newspaper that year, Pino called Bush a ''cocaine cowboy . . . who has added an extra 100,000 corpses to the pile of brown-colored corpses.''
He told the Beacon Journal in March 2007 he ''absolutely'' does not support jihad, a Muslim word for the struggle in the name of Allah. He declined to comment when asked if he was ''Lover of Angels.''
In November 2007, the university demoted the head of Pino's history department for authorizing a six-week, mid-semester leave for Pino to the United Arab Emirates. Pino sought to learn Arabic to pursue his research specialty, African Muslim slaves in Brazil who wrote in Arabic.
The university said the department chair did not follow KSU procedure and called Pino abruptly back from his trip.
Pino joined KSU in 1992. He has tenure, or virtual lifetime employment.
Postal Services New Stamp
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-301941.htm
The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama. The stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings: The stamp is in perfect condition and nothing is wrong with the adhesive. People are spitting on the wrong side.
Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino
Here's something you don't see every day. Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis and Fats Domino - three of the greatest ivory ticklers of their day - playing pianos on the same stage at the same time. Brace yourself and make sure your sound is on because this show will rock you out of your seat.
This is a once in a lifetime appearance and one you will not forget! Ron Woods of the Rolling Stones, Carl Perkins (Blue Suede Shoes) and others playing back-up, a cameo appearance by Rod Stewart and all directed by Paul Schaeffer.
http://vodpod.com/watch/1116988-ray-charles-jerry-lee-lewis-fats-domino
Michelle Obama Takes Girls to London for Fish and Chips
Posted by: Mike's America
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/09/michelle-obama-takes-girls-to-london-for-fish-and-chips/
A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!
Michelle One
On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.
We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:
“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”
Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.
The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:
Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.
The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”
Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair. The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip!
God have mercy on America!
http://adjunct.diodon349.com/Christian/god_have_mercy_on_america.htm
After a recent study of the book of Isaiah in the Bible, I came to the same conclusion as this Oklahoma preacher. I have been praying daily for our nation to return to God. I now ask all of you,my email buddies to do the same.
I remember reading about the children of Israel who turned from God time and time again, only to realize their mistake and pray for forgiveness. Each time, God would forgive them and they would walk with him for a time. So, I am going to ask you to join me in praying for our nation every day. Please read the text below.. God is in control.
May God Have Mercy On America; Protect Our Troops
When we were in Texarkana last week, there were signs in people's yards that said, " America , prayer is our only hope" - with 2 Chron. 7:14 underneath. We certainly need God's help!
I have no idea who started this, but I certainly agree with this e-mail. I heard a preacher on TV tonight who said if we pray for our nation that things will turn around.
After a day of contemplation and soul searching, I have decided to reach out to my friends and relatives and ask you to do something that has been troubling me for a long time.
Our nation is/has been on the slippery slope for a long time. If you look around you will find corruption, greed, moral decay, and a steady move away from the things that made us great. The principles upon which this nation was founded are no longer our backbone.
However, we can reverse this trend.
2 Chron. 7:14 in God's Word, He states,
"If my people who are called by my
name will humble themselves and pray
and seek my face and turn from their
wicked ways, then I will hear from
heaven and will forgive their sin and
heal their land."
I am convinced that we must pray for our nation and its leaders and ask for forgiveness. So I ask you to join me in this plea to our Lord.
Would you please send this to people in your address book? Ask them to pray EVERY DAY. (25 to the 5th power is 9,765,625 people.) IMAGINE if each person reaches TEN others... Or all TWENTY FIVE!
If you do and they comply, we will lift up millions and millions of prayers a day to our Creator. He will hear us, and in faith will answer.
Here's a quote from Ronald Reagan:
"If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
I truly believe this is why the United States of America is in the shape it's in today.
Most people have forgotten that we are ONE NATION UNDER GOD! Let us as Christians stand up and remind people of this.
MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS
Our leaning side
Every time I am asked to pray, I think of the old deacon who always prayed, 'Lord, prop us up on our leanin' side.'After hearing him pray that prayer many times, someone asked him why he prayed that prayer so fervently.
He answered, 'Well sir, you see, it's like this... I got an old barn out back. It's been there a long time; it's withstood a lot ofweather; it's gone through a lot of storms, and it's stood for many years.
It's still standing. But one day I noticed it was leaning to one side a bit.
So I went and got some pine poles and propped it up on its leaning side so it wouldn't fall.
Then I got to thinking about that and how much I was like that old barn. I've been around a long time.
I've withstood a lot of life's storms. I've withstood a lot of bad weather in life, I've withstood a lot of hard times,and I'm still standing too. But I find myself leaning to one side from time to time, so I like to ask the Lord to prop us up on our leaning side, 'cause I figure a lot of us get to leaning at times.
Sometimes we get to leaning toward anger, leaning toward bitterness, leaning toward hatred, leaning toward cussing, leaning toward a lot of things that we shouldn't . So we need to pray, 'Lord, prop us up on our leaning side, so we will stand straight and tall again, to glorify the Lord.''
"The e-mail Bag"
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
Don't wait for 6 strong men to take you to church.
GRANDPA'S WISDOM
http://home.att.net/~scorh3/GrandpaWisdom.html
Whether a man winds up with a nest egg or a goose egg depends a lot on the kind of chick he marries.
Trouble in marriage often starts when a man gets so busy earnin' his salt that he forgets his sugar.
Too many couples marry for better or for worse, but not for good.
When a man marries a woman, they become one; but the trouble starts when they try to decide which one.
If a man has enough horse sense to treat his wife like a thoroughbred, she will never turn into an old nag.
Judging from the specimens they pick for husbands, it's no wonder that brides often blush.
On anniversaries, the wise husband always forgets the past - but never the present.
A foolish husband says to his wife: "Honey, you stick to the washin', ironin', cookin', and scrubbin'. No wife of mine is gonna work."
The bonds of matrimony are a good investment only when the interest is kept up.
Many girls like to marry a military man -- he can cook, sew, make beds, and is in good health. And he's already used to taking orders.
Grandpappy and his wife were discussing their 50th wedding anniversary, she said, "Shall I kill a chicken tonight?" "Naw," said Grandpappy, why blame a bird for something that happened 50 years ago."
I need a small favor : Vacation Time
I need a small favor… if it’s not too much trouble. I am going away on vacation and I need a friend to come over to water my plants while I am gone. In the hot weather they’ll probably need water twice a day. Thanks a lot. I’ll send you a postcard. I’ve attached a photo for your reference.
The ladder is on the side of the house.
I’m not sure where the photo originated from. The picture and letter have been floating around the internet. Does anyone know where the picture came from? I feel compelled to give credit where credit is surely due and that’s to both the photographer and letter writer. This was too cute. I think it’d take a fire hose to water those flowers.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
President Obama and His $1.3 Trillion Deficit
Each and every time President Obama holds a “News Conference”, a “Town Hall”, or otherwise talks into the microphone with a TV camera about a weakening economy, he continues to blame the Bush Administration. He started this debate early upon his swearing-in, and since then always mentions the fact that this is the worst recession since the “Great Depression”. Six (6) months into Presidential Obama’s own administration, the economy is weakening. At President Obama’s request, Capitol Hill legislators have passed an economic stimulus total, or giveaway if you choose to define it, exceeding $1.788 Trillion. Obama and his own administration members say they just underestimated the economy. How can Obama underestimate the economy when he very early said it was as enormous as the great depression? How did President Obama and the Democrat majority on Capitol Hill expect a $1.788 Trillion giveaway be the corrective medicine to a fragile economy? Does Americans really know and understand what $1.788 Trillion Dollars of deficit spending in our economy is all about? Taxpayers owe these deficits to lenders such as China, Saudi Arabia, etc.; some of these people and their governments don’t like Americans and/or our values. Would you like to see, and compare, what $1 Trillion may look like? See:
http://www..youtube.com/watch?v=1HFGLXLFzzI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailynewscaster%2Ecom%2F2009%2F04%2F10%2Fwhat%2Ddoes%2Da%2Dtrillion%2Ddollars%2Dlook%2Dlike%2F&feature=player_embedded
Obama continues to say he inherited a $1.3 Trillion budget deficit. What he is leaving out is the fact that he himself said during the campaign that he was in contact with leaders on Capitol Hill to support the $700 Billion Stimulus #1 as reported on http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/goal-stimulus-p.html.
Sen. Obama then voted on October 1, 2008 for Stimulus #1 (This one was charged to President Bush) (On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213#position
As President-elect, Obama pushed for an additional $250 Billion Stimulus (On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 5 )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00005
Be careful with this voting record. It is like a reverse vote for Obama and the majority Democrats to win this giveaway! - oyh
On February 13, 2009, the US Senate passed, for this recession, Stimulus #2. This was President Obama’s Stimulus #1 (H.R 1)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064n for an additional $838 Billion Stimulus “Big Fat Pork” loaded giveaway.
At what point in time will President Obama accept his own responsibility for his economic failures based on his own inability to recognize higher taxes, and recklessly spending taxpayers’ monies, are not the therapeutic medication for an ailing economy? When Mr. President? When will the George Bush administration end? When will you accept your own fiscal responsibility during this recession?
While we all pray for President Obama, America, and our world economy, President Obama, our US Senate, and US Congress cannot continue to increase taxes, and excessively outspend the intake of our taxpayers’ money. Lowering taxes and lowering spending will rebuild a fragile free economy, and continue for an economic expansion. Wake up and smell the coffee of success. It is, to a great extent, like a rising sun!
http://www..youtube.com/watch?v=1HFGLXLFzzI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailynewscaster%2Ecom%2F2009%2F04%2F10%2Fwhat%2Ddoes%2Da%2Dtrillion%2Ddollars%2Dlook%2Dlike%2F&feature=player_embedded
Obama continues to say he inherited a $1.3 Trillion budget deficit. What he is leaving out is the fact that he himself said during the campaign that he was in contact with leaders on Capitol Hill to support the $700 Billion Stimulus #1 as reported on http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/goal-stimulus-p.html.
Sen. Obama then voted on October 1, 2008 for Stimulus #1 (This one was charged to President Bush) (On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213#position
As President-elect, Obama pushed for an additional $250 Billion Stimulus (On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 5 )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00005
Be careful with this voting record. It is like a reverse vote for Obama and the majority Democrats to win this giveaway! - oyh
On February 13, 2009, the US Senate passed, for this recession, Stimulus #2. This was President Obama’s Stimulus #1 (H.R 1)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064n for an additional $838 Billion Stimulus “Big Fat Pork” loaded giveaway.
At what point in time will President Obama accept his own responsibility for his economic failures based on his own inability to recognize higher taxes, and recklessly spending taxpayers’ monies, are not the therapeutic medication for an ailing economy? When Mr. President? When will the George Bush administration end? When will you accept your own fiscal responsibility during this recession?
While we all pray for President Obama, America, and our world economy, President Obama, our US Senate, and US Congress cannot continue to increase taxes, and excessively outspend the intake of our taxpayers’ money. Lowering taxes and lowering spending will rebuild a fragile free economy, and continue for an economic expansion. Wake up and smell the coffee of success. It is, to a great extent, like a rising sun!
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090723
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
The key is not to prioritize what's on the schedule, but to schedule your priorities. -- Stephen Covey
All things are difficult before they are easy. -- John Norley
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Now I can walk in Your presence, O God, in Your life-giving light." (Psalm 56:13)
Our confidence is in the ever-present nature of God. We can be sure that He sees us, walks with us, and loves us no matter where we are. In fact, God wants us to "consciously" live in His presence every day.
Brother Lawrence, a humble monk of the 16th century, authored a classic little book, The Practice of the Presence of God. For fifteen years, his responsibility was to wash greasy pots and pans in the monastery - a job he disliked. But practicing the presence of God transformed what he considered a chore into an exciting privilege. As Brother Lawrence said, "The most holy and necessary practice in our spiritual life is the presence of God. That means finding constant pleasure in His divine company..." Joseph de Beaufort, his close friend, says of Brother Lawrence, "The worst trial he could imagine was losing his sense of God's presence."
Every morning, I make it a practice to fall to my knees in prayer beside my bed. I ask my Lord to live His life in and through me throughout the day. My request is that He will walk around in my body, speak with my lips, use my hands and feet for His glory, and control my thoughts so they honor Him.
I encourage you to begin a daily practice of praising God during all your activities. But praise is just the beginning of a lifestyle of practicing the presence of God. Remember, wherever you go, He is already there.
"The Patriot Post"
"It behooves you, therefore, to think and act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail." -- Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1775
INSIGHT
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end." -- English author George Orwell (1903-1950)
GOVERNMENT
"Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections." -- George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
POLITICAL FUTURES
"[Al] Franken is an admitted clown. As such, he will be the only admitted clown in the United States Senate, though he will be seated with such clownish figures as Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Harry Reid. ... Upon hearing of the [Minnesota Supreme] court's decision, Franken joked that he was 'thrilled and honored by the faith that Minnesotans have placed in' him. That is not a very funny joke, but Franken is not funny. By 'Minnesotans,' he probably is attempting irony in referring to his supporters on vote canvassing boards in several left-leaning counties, who turned up a sufficient number of thitherto-uncounted votes to give him the edge. In the Nov.. 4 election, Coleman won by 725 votes. After a recount, he still won by 215. Then Franken's 'Minnesotans' got busy canvassing. They demanded that votes once disqualified in their counties be counted. They found thousands of absentee ballots previously rejected for such indelicacies as fabricated addresses. Coleman cried foul and asked that one statewide standard be applied to all recounts. However, he got nowhere with this plea for equal protection of the law, and in the meantime, Franken's larcenous operatives picked up 1,350 more absentee votes, some bearing the names of pop singers. Ultimately, Franken's team managed a 312-vote victory from the 2.9 million votes cast. The Wall Street Journal was not alone in its judgment that 'Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.'" -- columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell
CULTURE
"The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called 'King of Pop.' Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the 'news' business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the 'news' of Congress and recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential? An alien arriving from space would find him celebrated for dressing in shiny socks and dancing the 'moonwalk.' His music broke sales records and sets dance floors hopping, and his videos made people say 'I want my MTV.' But all this happened a long time ago, when MTV was a music channel. That is not how Michael Jackson dominated the pop-culture news scene for the past 15 years or so. What about Michael Jackson, the man? Was he, in the end, a good man? It seemed no one asked. Everyone wanted to celebrate the mystique of Jackson, but no one was comfortable focusing on the real Michael Jackson.... The coverage was an ocean wide -- and an inch deep." -- Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell
THE LAST WORD
"Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents -- call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever -- do. Which brings us ... to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the 'organizing' streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? Well, he said that he would raise capital gains tax rates, even if it reduced revenues, as a matter of fairness. It's only fair to make everyone poorer if you believe profits are inherently evil. He told Joe the Plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. He talked about confiscating Exxon Mobil's profits and giving them to consumers, saying 'they are not going to give up those profits easily.' He called Chrysler creditors 'speculators' and castigated them for refusing to accept his extortionist reorganization plan. He berated Wall Street for making profits, saying 'now is not (the) time' for them to 'rake in profits.' He and his wife even railed against the pursuit of profit in their respective commencement addresses. He abused the power of his office to steal money from GM and Chrysler shareholders and transfer it to the proletariat, I mean, the United Auto Workers. He redistributed taxpayer money from those who have paid their mortgages to those who have not. He is desperately trying to spread the misery and impoverish businesses and individuals through his cap and tax plan, which no proponent of economic growth and prosperity would consider supporting. And in addition to gobbling up other businesses and industries, he is trying to nationalize medicine -- to siphon off the evil surplus value charged by doctors and insurance companies -- on the flawed Marxist theory that he can reduce costs overall, when the reason health care costs have already skyrocketed is that market forces have been suppressed in the industry. You don't have to call him a Marxist, but at least understand where his heart is." -- columnist David Limbaugh
"Heritage Foundation"
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.
We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an ?Exchange-participating health benefits plan,? all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.
President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:
Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.
Quick Hits:
Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: “Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill … the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. … The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”
According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion.
Thanks to Obama’s “sweeping agenda,” the lobbyists on K Street are “awash in cash.”
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop ?standards of measuring gender? — as opposed to using the traditional “male” and “female” categories — in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
"The Web"
Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.
Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.
The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.
Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.
"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."
But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.
"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."
"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.
Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."
The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."
"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."
Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.
Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.
"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."
While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.
"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.
Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.
"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.
The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:
"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."
"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.
But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."
Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.
While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.
The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.
ObamaCare is a sick joke
By Jason Lee
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamacare_is_a_sick_joke.html
As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored...
By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.
Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.
The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you're happy, don't get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the bill proposed by House Democrats would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion.
Team Obama says the CBO has failed to account for plans to reduce waste and cut services. Unfortunately, reducing waste would account for only about 1% of ObamaCare "savings." Any other potential savings would have to come from reductions in patient care services.
In its "keep the plan deficit-neutral" charade, the Obama Administration indicates that it is counting on reductions in patient care in the form of cuts to the Medicare health program for the elderly. However, the American Medical Association, in its controversial letter of support for the Democrats' plan, thanks House leaders for repealing $230 billion of Medicare cuts.
Team Obama is also counting on savings from prevention initiatives. Legislation pushed by Senate Democrats mentions "prevention" repeatedly. But as the CBO has repeatedly pointed out, prevention doesn't generally save money.
Obama tells us he wants a public plan comparable to the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan Congress enjoys. This notion is a farce. Congress has a high-choice cafeteria plan that is indeed paid for by the public, but it is not run by the government.
Congress enjoys very special perks the rest of us can only dream about. There is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, and Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Is Congress going to provide us with VIP treatment?
ObamaCare will implement an oppressive health care bureaucracy with eye-popping complexity that would make Rube Goldberg's head spin.
When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn't think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama's sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.
The halcyon days of the 2008 campaign are long gone. Elections have consequences - broken promises, for example. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that Obama and friends will have to play by the rules they implement, right?
Wrong!
"Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill."
Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress "an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan." Fleming's resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.
Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can't blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.
Americans have lost their appetite for hypocrisy, reckless spending, and the intrusion of incompetent government into every aspect of their lives. Obama is trying to address one of these concerns by promising that he "won't sign any health-care bill that adds to the deficit", but it's apparently too little and too late. Support for ObamaCare is crumbling. Consider some of the most recent observations:
The Washington Post: "Months of relative cooperation among disparate interest groups in the heath-care reform debate appear to be coming to an end..."
Reuters: "Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama's signature domestic issue and a major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time..."
CNN: Six key senators - three Democrats, one independent and two moderate Republicans - sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for a slowdown in the push for a health care overhaul, in light of the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that the Democratic plan currently being considered would not cut medical costs.
WSB: "Last week saw a rollercoaster of events that seemingly gave momentum to the controversial health reform initiative and then saw it slowed down..."
Politico: Jim DeMint apparently smells the possibility of victory. "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The Associated Press: "Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?"
Obama spent vast quantities of political capital and strained his credibility to the breaking point with the Chicken Little schtick he put on to sell the stimulus package. When it comes to healthcare, perhaps the sky is falling, but Americans don't seem to be listening anymore.
Obama's popularity is sagging, the tone is changing, and even his cheerleaders are losing enthusiasm. "What's in it for you? Pain and discipline!", they exclaim. "Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?"
When Obama took the White House, giving Democrats solid control of Washington, government-dominated healthcare seemed to be an inevitability. Now the picture isn't so clear. Conservatives have many reasons to be optimistic about their opportunity to defeat ObamaCare.
White House: Obama Made Same Abortion Pledge to Pope That He Made to Planned Parenthood
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51304
(CNSNews.com) - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Monday that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007.
In a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama decried the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In a question-and-answer session after the speech, Obama said the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
While Obama did acknowledge a need to find “common ground” in the speech to Planned Parenthood, he spoke of it in the context of promoting contraception--not in the context of persuading pregnant women not to abort their unborn children.
“There’s a moral component to prevention. And we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging it,” said Obama. “As parents, as family members, we need to encourage young people to show reverence toward sexuality and intimacy. We need to teach that not just to the young girls, we need to teach it to those young boys. But even as we are teaching those lessons, we should never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control or a lifetime of illness because she doesn’t understand how to protect herself. That’s just commonsense. There’s common ground on behalf of commonsense—there we have an opportunity to move forward and agree.”
While visiting the Vatican earlier this month, Obama reportedly promised the pope he would work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. As reported by Agence French Presse, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Obama made the promise "very explicit" during his 40-minute meeting with the pontiff.
"The pontiff told me that President Obama affirmed his personal commitment to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States," Lombardi said, according to AFP.
On Monday, CNSNews.com asked Gibbs if Obama’s commitment to the pope to work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States means he supports an amendment to the health-care reform bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) that would prohibit federal funds from going to abortion through federally subsidized health-insurance programs.
Gibbs interrupted the question to say that Obama had said the same thing to Planned Parenthood in 2007 that he said to the pope this year.
CNSNews.com: “Going back to the President's visit to the Vatican, he reportedly told the Pope that he would work to and do all he could to reduce the number of abortions—”
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs: “I think he said -- he said that in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, so yes.”
CNSNews.com: “Could someone reasonably say that in doing all you can do to reduce the number of abortions would also mean supporting the Hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit federal funds going to abortion?”
Gibbs: “Well, I have not seen the Hatch amendment. I know the president believes that current policy--certainly current policy for Medicaid prohibits federal funding for abortions. That’s the Hyde amendment. I think when it comes to designing a benefit package, I think the president and this administration agree that that's--a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.”
On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag would not rule out that he final health-care bill would include federal funding for abortion—just as Gibbs did not rule it out in his answer at the press briefing today.
“I think that that [abortion funding] will wind up being part of the debate,” Orszag told Fox News. “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”
Last week, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee declined to adopt the Hatch amendment, forbidding federal funding of abortion, in its version of the health-care reform bill.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, defended the bill’s prospective funding of abortion.
“We like the idea that people have choices and, indeed, the law of the land permits people to make those choices, and we respect that, and we are going to pursue that,” Dodd told CNSNews.com last week when asked about abortion funding in the bill. “Again, we do not want to discriminate when people have--they have convictions, moral convictions and religious convictions.”
PANCAKES
Six year old Brandon decided one Saturday morning to fix his parents pancakes. He found a big bowl and spoon, pulled a chair to the counter, opened the cupboard and pulled out the heavy flour canister, spilling it on the floor. He scooped some of the flour into the bowl with his hands, mixed in most of a cup of milk and added some sugar, leaving a floury trail on the floor which by now had a few tracks left by his kitten.
Brandon was covered with flour and getting frustrated. He wanted this to be something very good for Mom and Dad, but it was getting very bad. He didn't know what to do next, neither to put it all into the oven or on the stove, (and he didn't know how the stove worked!).
Suddenly he saw his kitten licking from the bowl of mix and reached to push her away, knocking the egg carton to the floor. Frantically he tried to clean up this monumental mess but slipped on the eggs, getting his pajamas white and sticky. And just then he saw Dad standing at the door. Big crocodile tears welled up in Brandon's eyes.
All he'd wanted to do was something good, but he'd made a terrible mess. He was sure a scolding was coming, maybe even a spanking. But his father just watched him. Then, walking through the mess, he picked up his crying son, hugged him and loved him, getting his own panamas white and sticky in the process.
That's how God deals with us. We try to do something good in life, but it turns into a mess. Our marriage gets all sticky or we insult a friend or we can't stand our job or our health goes sour. Sometimes we just stand there in tears because we can't think of anything else to do. That's when God picks us up and loves us and forgives us, even though some of our mess gets all over Him. But just because we might mess up, we can't stop trying to "make pancakes", for God or for others. Sooner or later we'll get it right, and then they'll be glad we tried.
I was thinking... and I wondered if I had any wounds needing to be healed, friendships that need rekindling or three words needing to be said, sometimes, "I love you" can heal & bless!
Remind every one of your friends and family that you love them. It's amazing at what those three little words, a smile, and a reminder like this can do.
Just in case I haven't told you lately... “I LOVE YA”!!!
Please pass some of this love on to others... suppose one morning you were called to God; do all your friends and family that they will know you love them!
And never stop making pancakes.
Do You Remember 1987.....
http://dailythoughtpad.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-you-remember-1987.html
I had forgotten all of this. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it?
Do you remember 1987.......
Trade Towers Before 9/11/2001
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.
A couple of people laughed at the attempt.. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
9/11
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore! (Thank you Al, you are such an embarrassment to Tennessee !!)
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.
.. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
After 9/11/2001
The Morals and Question from This Story…
If we don’t teach and learn history… there is a grave consequence!
It is a tough world and we need tough leadership!
Our own government, as that of most countries, lies to us, censor and skews the news and re-writes history!
Many of the same plus new “Progressives” are in power!!
If Al Gore was this wrong in favor of Osamba Bin Laden and against an American Hero like Lt. Oliver North can you really buy into his Global Warming… ah Climate Change misinformation galvanized by the Dem’s and Obama’s Cap-and-Trade (uh… Cap-and-Tax) Bill?
The Israelis were right…
Who will be the next Mohammad Atta? Perhaps one of the released Gitmo Detainees?
If you want God to Bless America, you need America to remember God’s name!
History repeats itself, if you don’t the lessons the first time
The Obama Administration Grants Miranda Rights Rights To Detainees In Afghanistan.
by Stephen F. Hayes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp?pg=1
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today -- foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they're reading them their rights -- Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning -- so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people -- 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"
Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the
CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."
One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America -- except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.
Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income, eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House Democrats' plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building a new bureaucracy. Heller proposed using existing state and federal databases created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.
If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.
The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., calls the proposition "too politically explosive."
But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.
"Explosive"? The applause certainly was. Obama's praise of the weakened immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from members of Congress at the S-CHIP signing event.
Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.
The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.
For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegal aliens are not getting free health care, and that even if they were, they would not be not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing non-emergency health services for illegal immigrants.
"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP. The Texas state comptroller put the price tag for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today reported that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28 percent in North Carolina alone. Clinics across the Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant care costs.
At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. "I'm just mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.
Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me
Written By Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio
"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.
It is the most-requested column I've ever written."
My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and
parents will. Stay in touch.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their
journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God
never blinks.
16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is
up to you and no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no
for an answer.
21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie.
Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.
22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain.
25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will
this matter?'
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did
or didn't do.
35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood.
38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's,we'd
grab ours back.
41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
42. The best is yet to come.
43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift."
Friends are the family that we choose for ourselves.
"The e-mail Bag
Definition of Stop…
A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriff's Deputy.
The lawyer thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he's sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputies expense.
Deputy says, "License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What for?"
Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign "
Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."
Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"
Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"
Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not, you let me go and don't give me a ticket."
Deputy says, "Sounds fair. Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the crap out of the lawyer and says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"
"Daily Motivations"
The key is not to prioritize what's on the schedule, but to schedule your priorities. -- Stephen Covey
All things are difficult before they are easy. -- John Norley
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Now I can walk in Your presence, O God, in Your life-giving light." (Psalm 56:13)
Our confidence is in the ever-present nature of God. We can be sure that He sees us, walks with us, and loves us no matter where we are. In fact, God wants us to "consciously" live in His presence every day.
Brother Lawrence, a humble monk of the 16th century, authored a classic little book, The Practice of the Presence of God. For fifteen years, his responsibility was to wash greasy pots and pans in the monastery - a job he disliked. But practicing the presence of God transformed what he considered a chore into an exciting privilege. As Brother Lawrence said, "The most holy and necessary practice in our spiritual life is the presence of God. That means finding constant pleasure in His divine company..." Joseph de Beaufort, his close friend, says of Brother Lawrence, "The worst trial he could imagine was losing his sense of God's presence."
Every morning, I make it a practice to fall to my knees in prayer beside my bed. I ask my Lord to live His life in and through me throughout the day. My request is that He will walk around in my body, speak with my lips, use my hands and feet for His glory, and control my thoughts so they honor Him.
I encourage you to begin a daily practice of praising God during all your activities. But praise is just the beginning of a lifestyle of practicing the presence of God. Remember, wherever you go, He is already there.
"The Patriot Post"
"It behooves you, therefore, to think and act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail." -- Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1775
INSIGHT
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end." -- English author George Orwell (1903-1950)
GOVERNMENT
"Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections." -- George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
POLITICAL FUTURES
"[Al] Franken is an admitted clown. As such, he will be the only admitted clown in the United States Senate, though he will be seated with such clownish figures as Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Harry Reid. ... Upon hearing of the [Minnesota Supreme] court's decision, Franken joked that he was 'thrilled and honored by the faith that Minnesotans have placed in' him. That is not a very funny joke, but Franken is not funny. By 'Minnesotans,' he probably is attempting irony in referring to his supporters on vote canvassing boards in several left-leaning counties, who turned up a sufficient number of thitherto-uncounted votes to give him the edge. In the Nov.. 4 election, Coleman won by 725 votes. After a recount, he still won by 215. Then Franken's 'Minnesotans' got busy canvassing. They demanded that votes once disqualified in their counties be counted. They found thousands of absentee ballots previously rejected for such indelicacies as fabricated addresses. Coleman cried foul and asked that one statewide standard be applied to all recounts. However, he got nowhere with this plea for equal protection of the law, and in the meantime, Franken's larcenous operatives picked up 1,350 more absentee votes, some bearing the names of pop singers. Ultimately, Franken's team managed a 312-vote victory from the 2.9 million votes cast. The Wall Street Journal was not alone in its judgment that 'Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.'" -- columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell
CULTURE
"The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called 'King of Pop.' Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the 'news' business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the 'news' of Congress and recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential? An alien arriving from space would find him celebrated for dressing in shiny socks and dancing the 'moonwalk.' His music broke sales records and sets dance floors hopping, and his videos made people say 'I want my MTV.' But all this happened a long time ago, when MTV was a music channel. That is not how Michael Jackson dominated the pop-culture news scene for the past 15 years or so. What about Michael Jackson, the man? Was he, in the end, a good man? It seemed no one asked. Everyone wanted to celebrate the mystique of Jackson, but no one was comfortable focusing on the real Michael Jackson.... The coverage was an ocean wide -- and an inch deep." -- Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell
THE LAST WORD
"Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents -- call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever -- do. Which brings us ... to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the 'organizing' streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? Well, he said that he would raise capital gains tax rates, even if it reduced revenues, as a matter of fairness. It's only fair to make everyone poorer if you believe profits are inherently evil. He told Joe the Plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. He talked about confiscating Exxon Mobil's profits and giving them to consumers, saying 'they are not going to give up those profits easily.' He called Chrysler creditors 'speculators' and castigated them for refusing to accept his extortionist reorganization plan. He berated Wall Street for making profits, saying 'now is not (the) time' for them to 'rake in profits.' He and his wife even railed against the pursuit of profit in their respective commencement addresses. He abused the power of his office to steal money from GM and Chrysler shareholders and transfer it to the proletariat, I mean, the United Auto Workers. He redistributed taxpayer money from those who have paid their mortgages to those who have not. He is desperately trying to spread the misery and impoverish businesses and individuals through his cap and tax plan, which no proponent of economic growth and prosperity would consider supporting. And in addition to gobbling up other businesses and industries, he is trying to nationalize medicine -- to siphon off the evil surplus value charged by doctors and insurance companies -- on the flawed Marxist theory that he can reduce costs overall, when the reason health care costs have already skyrocketed is that market forces have been suppressed in the industry. You don't have to call him a Marxist, but at least understand where his heart is." -- columnist David Limbaugh
"Heritage Foundation"
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.
We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an ?Exchange-participating health benefits plan,? all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.
President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:
Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.
Quick Hits:
Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: “Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill … the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. … The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”
According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion.
Thanks to Obama’s “sweeping agenda,” the lobbyists on K Street are “awash in cash.”
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop ?standards of measuring gender? — as opposed to using the traditional “male” and “female” categories — in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
"The Web"
Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.
Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.
The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.
Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.
"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."
But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.
"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."
"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.
Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."
The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."
"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."
Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.
Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.
"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."
While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.
"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.
Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.
"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.
The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:
"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."
"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.
But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."
Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.
While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.
The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.
ObamaCare is a sick joke
By Jason Lee
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamacare_is_a_sick_joke.html
As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored...
By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.
Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.
The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you're happy, don't get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the bill proposed by House Democrats would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion.
Team Obama says the CBO has failed to account for plans to reduce waste and cut services. Unfortunately, reducing waste would account for only about 1% of ObamaCare "savings." Any other potential savings would have to come from reductions in patient care services.
In its "keep the plan deficit-neutral" charade, the Obama Administration indicates that it is counting on reductions in patient care in the form of cuts to the Medicare health program for the elderly. However, the American Medical Association, in its controversial letter of support for the Democrats' plan, thanks House leaders for repealing $230 billion of Medicare cuts.
Team Obama is also counting on savings from prevention initiatives. Legislation pushed by Senate Democrats mentions "prevention" repeatedly. But as the CBO has repeatedly pointed out, prevention doesn't generally save money.
Obama tells us he wants a public plan comparable to the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan Congress enjoys. This notion is a farce. Congress has a high-choice cafeteria plan that is indeed paid for by the public, but it is not run by the government.
Congress enjoys very special perks the rest of us can only dream about. There is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, and Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Is Congress going to provide us with VIP treatment?
ObamaCare will implement an oppressive health care bureaucracy with eye-popping complexity that would make Rube Goldberg's head spin.
When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn't think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama's sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.
The halcyon days of the 2008 campaign are long gone. Elections have consequences - broken promises, for example. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that Obama and friends will have to play by the rules they implement, right?
Wrong!
"Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill."
Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress "an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan." Fleming's resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.
Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can't blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.
Americans have lost their appetite for hypocrisy, reckless spending, and the intrusion of incompetent government into every aspect of their lives. Obama is trying to address one of these concerns by promising that he "won't sign any health-care bill that adds to the deficit", but it's apparently too little and too late. Support for ObamaCare is crumbling. Consider some of the most recent observations:
The Washington Post: "Months of relative cooperation among disparate interest groups in the heath-care reform debate appear to be coming to an end..."
Reuters: "Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama's signature domestic issue and a major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time..."
CNN: Six key senators - three Democrats, one independent and two moderate Republicans - sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for a slowdown in the push for a health care overhaul, in light of the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that the Democratic plan currently being considered would not cut medical costs.
WSB: "Last week saw a rollercoaster of events that seemingly gave momentum to the controversial health reform initiative and then saw it slowed down..."
Politico: Jim DeMint apparently smells the possibility of victory. "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The Associated Press: "Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?"
Obama spent vast quantities of political capital and strained his credibility to the breaking point with the Chicken Little schtick he put on to sell the stimulus package. When it comes to healthcare, perhaps the sky is falling, but Americans don't seem to be listening anymore.
Obama's popularity is sagging, the tone is changing, and even his cheerleaders are losing enthusiasm. "What's in it for you? Pain and discipline!", they exclaim. "Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?"
When Obama took the White House, giving Democrats solid control of Washington, government-dominated healthcare seemed to be an inevitability. Now the picture isn't so clear. Conservatives have many reasons to be optimistic about their opportunity to defeat ObamaCare.
White House: Obama Made Same Abortion Pledge to Pope That He Made to Planned Parenthood
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51304
(CNSNews.com) - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Monday that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007.
In a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama decried the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In a question-and-answer session after the speech, Obama said the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
While Obama did acknowledge a need to find “common ground” in the speech to Planned Parenthood, he spoke of it in the context of promoting contraception--not in the context of persuading pregnant women not to abort their unborn children.
“There’s a moral component to prevention. And we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging it,” said Obama. “As parents, as family members, we need to encourage young people to show reverence toward sexuality and intimacy. We need to teach that not just to the young girls, we need to teach it to those young boys. But even as we are teaching those lessons, we should never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control or a lifetime of illness because she doesn’t understand how to protect herself. That’s just commonsense. There’s common ground on behalf of commonsense—there we have an opportunity to move forward and agree.”
While visiting the Vatican earlier this month, Obama reportedly promised the pope he would work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. As reported by Agence French Presse, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Obama made the promise "very explicit" during his 40-minute meeting with the pontiff.
"The pontiff told me that President Obama affirmed his personal commitment to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States," Lombardi said, according to AFP.
On Monday, CNSNews.com asked Gibbs if Obama’s commitment to the pope to work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States means he supports an amendment to the health-care reform bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) that would prohibit federal funds from going to abortion through federally subsidized health-insurance programs.
Gibbs interrupted the question to say that Obama had said the same thing to Planned Parenthood in 2007 that he said to the pope this year.
CNSNews.com: “Going back to the President's visit to the Vatican, he reportedly told the Pope that he would work to and do all he could to reduce the number of abortions—”
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs: “I think he said -- he said that in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, so yes.”
CNSNews.com: “Could someone reasonably say that in doing all you can do to reduce the number of abortions would also mean supporting the Hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit federal funds going to abortion?”
Gibbs: “Well, I have not seen the Hatch amendment. I know the president believes that current policy--certainly current policy for Medicaid prohibits federal funding for abortions. That’s the Hyde amendment. I think when it comes to designing a benefit package, I think the president and this administration agree that that's--a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.”
On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag would not rule out that he final health-care bill would include federal funding for abortion—just as Gibbs did not rule it out in his answer at the press briefing today.
“I think that that [abortion funding] will wind up being part of the debate,” Orszag told Fox News. “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”
Last week, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee declined to adopt the Hatch amendment, forbidding federal funding of abortion, in its version of the health-care reform bill.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, defended the bill’s prospective funding of abortion.
“We like the idea that people have choices and, indeed, the law of the land permits people to make those choices, and we respect that, and we are going to pursue that,” Dodd told CNSNews.com last week when asked about abortion funding in the bill. “Again, we do not want to discriminate when people have--they have convictions, moral convictions and religious convictions.”
PANCAKES
Six year old Brandon decided one Saturday morning to fix his parents pancakes. He found a big bowl and spoon, pulled a chair to the counter, opened the cupboard and pulled out the heavy flour canister, spilling it on the floor. He scooped some of the flour into the bowl with his hands, mixed in most of a cup of milk and added some sugar, leaving a floury trail on the floor which by now had a few tracks left by his kitten.
Brandon was covered with flour and getting frustrated. He wanted this to be something very good for Mom and Dad, but it was getting very bad. He didn't know what to do next, neither to put it all into the oven or on the stove, (and he didn't know how the stove worked!).
Suddenly he saw his kitten licking from the bowl of mix and reached to push her away, knocking the egg carton to the floor. Frantically he tried to clean up this monumental mess but slipped on the eggs, getting his pajamas white and sticky. And just then he saw Dad standing at the door. Big crocodile tears welled up in Brandon's eyes.
All he'd wanted to do was something good, but he'd made a terrible mess. He was sure a scolding was coming, maybe even a spanking. But his father just watched him. Then, walking through the mess, he picked up his crying son, hugged him and loved him, getting his own panamas white and sticky in the process.
That's how God deals with us. We try to do something good in life, but it turns into a mess. Our marriage gets all sticky or we insult a friend or we can't stand our job or our health goes sour. Sometimes we just stand there in tears because we can't think of anything else to do. That's when God picks us up and loves us and forgives us, even though some of our mess gets all over Him. But just because we might mess up, we can't stop trying to "make pancakes", for God or for others. Sooner or later we'll get it right, and then they'll be glad we tried.
I was thinking... and I wondered if I had any wounds needing to be healed, friendships that need rekindling or three words needing to be said, sometimes, "I love you" can heal & bless!
Remind every one of your friends and family that you love them. It's amazing at what those three little words, a smile, and a reminder like this can do.
Just in case I haven't told you lately... “I LOVE YA”!!!
Please pass some of this love on to others... suppose one morning you were called to God; do all your friends and family that they will know you love them!
And never stop making pancakes.
Do You Remember 1987.....
http://dailythoughtpad.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-you-remember-1987.html
I had forgotten all of this. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it?
Do you remember 1987.......
Trade Towers Before 9/11/2001
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.
A couple of people laughed at the attempt.. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
9/11
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore! (Thank you Al, you are such an embarrassment to Tennessee !!)
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.
.. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
After 9/11/2001
The Morals and Question from This Story…
If we don’t teach and learn history… there is a grave consequence!
It is a tough world and we need tough leadership!
Our own government, as that of most countries, lies to us, censor and skews the news and re-writes history!
Many of the same plus new “Progressives” are in power!!
If Al Gore was this wrong in favor of Osamba Bin Laden and against an American Hero like Lt. Oliver North can you really buy into his Global Warming… ah Climate Change misinformation galvanized by the Dem’s and Obama’s Cap-and-Trade (uh… Cap-and-Tax) Bill?
The Israelis were right…
Who will be the next Mohammad Atta? Perhaps one of the released Gitmo Detainees?
If you want God to Bless America, you need America to remember God’s name!
History repeats itself, if you don’t the lessons the first time
The Obama Administration Grants Miranda Rights Rights To Detainees In Afghanistan.
by Stephen F. Hayes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp?pg=1
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today -- foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they're reading them their rights -- Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning -- so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people -- 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"
Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the
CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."
One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America -- except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.
Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income, eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House Democrats' plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building a new bureaucracy. Heller proposed using existing state and federal databases created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.
If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.
The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., calls the proposition "too politically explosive."
But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.
"Explosive"? The applause certainly was. Obama's praise of the weakened immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from members of Congress at the S-CHIP signing event.
Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.
The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.
For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegal aliens are not getting free health care, and that even if they were, they would not be not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing non-emergency health services for illegal immigrants.
"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP. The Texas state comptroller put the price tag for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today reported that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28 percent in North Carolina alone. Clinics across the Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant care costs.
At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. "I'm just mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.
Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me
Written By Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio
"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.
It is the most-requested column I've ever written."
My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and
parents will. Stay in touch.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their
journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God
never blinks.
16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is
up to you and no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no
for an answer.
21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie.
Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.
22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain.
25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will
this matter?'
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did
or didn't do.
35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood.
38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's,we'd
grab ours back.
41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
42. The best is yet to come.
43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift."
Friends are the family that we choose for ourselves.
"The e-mail Bag
Definition of Stop…
A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriff's Deputy.
The lawyer thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he's sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputies expense.
Deputy says, "License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What for?"
Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign "
Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."
Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"
Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"
Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not, you let me go and don't give me a ticket."
Deputy says, "Sounds fair. Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the crap out of the lawyer and says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican - Report - 20090722
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for... -- Joseph Addison
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. -- Will Rogers
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"But if we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong." (1 John 1:9)
God's Word teaches that every Christian should be prepared for battles with sin. There will never be a time in this life when you will be free from temptation. Satan is a real foe, and we must be prepared for both his subtle, cunning ways and his obvious attempts to defeat and destroy us.
There is a difference, however, between temptation and sin. Temptation is the initial impression to do something contrary to God's will. Even Jesus was not immune to temptation. But temptation becomes sin when you meditate on the impression and develop an unholy desire, which is an emotional sin that may be followed by a mental or physical act of disobedience.
So, how do you avoid temptation? First, surrender yourself to the control of the Holy Spirit, trusting Him to direct and empower you. Second, and more practically speaking, you simply recognize your weakness whenever you are tempted and ask the Lord to lead you away from temptation.
"The Patriot Post"
"My anxious recollections, my sympathetic feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." -- George Washington
"When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71
"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization." -- Ronald Reagan
FOR THE RECORD
"Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- First, make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... -- Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... -- Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. -- Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... -- If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... -- Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise.." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg
LIBERTY
"Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback [last week] when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution. It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking. But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. ...[T]he Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground. .... [Hillary Clinton] accused Honduras of violating 'the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter' and said it 'should be condemned by all.' Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government. Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. ... The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and [OAS Secretary General José Miguel] Insulza expose their true colors." -- columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady
"AFA"
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
National Education Association's top lawyer touts their real purpose
Says those who promote traditional values are a group of "right-wing b****rds"
July 21, 2009
PLEASE READ AND THEN FORWARD
The National Education Association's (NEA) top lawyer, Bob Chanin, recently made clear the goal of the NEA. He called those who believe in and work for traditional family values "b****rds." He also praised the NEA because the organization has "power" and "hundreds of millions" of dollars from dues to spend in promoting their agenda and political candidates.
I have included an article which shows, in their own words, what the NEA is doing. It is time for Christians who are members of the NEA to get out. We are funding the demise of Western Civilization. Please read this article!
Chanin's volley left no doubt where the NEA wants to take the public education system, and our children. It also served as a wake-up call for those who might be considering taking their children out of public schools.
If you are a member of NEA, I suggest you contact some more teacher friends and discuss this matter with them.
If you need legal help, I suggest you contact one of the two organizations listed below:
Liberty Council www.lc.org
Alliance Defense Fund www.telladf.org
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Many members of the NEA are not aware how the NEA is using their dues to promote leftwing politics. They can drop their membership in the NEA and secure many of the same benefits by joining other professional organizations which offer the same benefits.
The Association of American Educators is one. You can visit them on the web at www.aaeteachers.org..
Also, Christian Educators offers many of the same benefits. Their website is www.ceai.org.
"The Web"
Trace Adkins and the West Point Cadet Glee Club, USMA, ACM 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0mm4u2VzDs&NR=1
Marginalizing Sarah Palin
by Bill O'Reilly
http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2009/07/18/marginalizing_sarah_palin?page=full&comments=true
About a month ago, in this space, I told you The New York Times had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The Times poll said 57 percent were willing to pay more tax and 37 percent were not willing to do so. But what the Times did not tell its readers was that 48 percent of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Only 25 percent supported John McCain. Of course the poll results would skew left.
Now we have another media deceit. The most recent edition of Newsweek magazine includes a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news -- not an opinion column -- and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that I and other Fox News people lead the dumb GOP folks.
Anyone reading the story would think that a Newsweek correspondent put it together -- the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Perlstein is not a Newsweek correspondent and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Strange.
But it gets even stranger.
Turns out that Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." He lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote: "I've just become a proud Fox (News) attacker. Now, you can, too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."
So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage.
Newsweek magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the editors are upfront about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.
With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and federal intrusion into private business, health care and the environment is unprecedented. The far left aims to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." They also see a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.
In order to accomplish this, leftwing media are marginalizing people like Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930s.
Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.
Report: Fed bailout tab is at least $4.7 trillion
TARP overseer calls Treasury Dept. a poor watchdog. Total is a third of U.S. economy.
By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/843913.html
WASHINGTON The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.
Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.
The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.
The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry equals about one third of the overall U.S. economy. It takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives – the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral, and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount will be used.
Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs, and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.
The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.
Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency-lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs, and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.
Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for fees the government charges or for the collateral many of the programs require.
“While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents ‘potential exposure' associated with them,” Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.
In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability. But, he says, the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.
Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible,” Barofsky said.
“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”
The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.
The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that received TARP money, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn't verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP funds for lending, 43 percent used the federal money to add to their capital cushion, and 31 percent made new investments.
Atheists in the Capitol's Foxhole
by Chuck Norris
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/07/21/atheists_in_the_capitols_foxhole?page=full&comments=true
I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights -- what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.
This month, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions approving the engravings of the national motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center -- a 580,000-square-foot facility under the Capitol -- where 15,500 guests visit each day.
Spearheading the measures were Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who are leaders who also have drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Forbes addressing the House on this matter -- called "Our Judeo-Christian Nation" -- has received about 2.5 million hits to date, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Also, some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can be seen on the YouTube posting called "War on God."
Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, which filed suit in an effort to prevent the engravings.
According to The Associated Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says its lawsuit is based upon the foundations that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our coins and bills, which have "In God We Trust" on them, into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!
Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the claims as ludicrous.
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Lungren said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
And Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices: "This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are 'endowed by our Creator.' If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our Founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
So, could the lawsuit prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument -- that our national motto, "In God We Trust," is unconstitutional.
That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer (202-228-1793 or emalecki@aoc.gov) and also their representatives to inform them about what they think of the engraved national motto and Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.
Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitor Center has a couple of them in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know not only that the motto and pledge are at the heart of our country but also that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.
18 Years old debating the qualifications to be President of The United States?
http://www..sodahead.com/question/370947/18-years-old-debating-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states/
Clueless in Seattle In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born ... Clueless in Seattle
In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
Yep, these are the 18 year olds that just voted for the President of the United States.
(May make you question what are being taught to our children in public schools. - oyh)
Sotomayor Would Not Concede a Right to Self-Defense
CNSNews.com
By Adam Brickley
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivers her opening statement on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing befor the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”
Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”
In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”
Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, “But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”
Sotomayor responded, “I – as I said, I don’t know.”
Later in the exchange, Coburn said, “I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion.”
“But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me,” Sotomayor relied.
William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,” he said.
Van Alstyne told CNSNews.com that the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat” if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).
However, van Alstyne also said that the court has made rulings that indicate a basic right to defend one’s life.
“Interestingly enough,” van Alstyne said, “I think you may find it, as I would, in the court’s abortion cases.”
He asserted that, “even under Roe v. Wade and all of the other decisions, once the fetus has hit the seventh or, at latest, eighth month, it is deemed quote ‘viable.’”
Continuing this line of reasoning, he stated that, “the woman may, nevertheless, get a physician’s willing help to off the fetus – the viable offspring – if it’s necessary to do so either to save her own life or merely to keep her physical health unimpaired.”
“The Roe court,” van Alstyne claimed, “and the current court, in the majority opinion has taken the position that your right to ‘protect your own life’ as a woman gives you an entitlement to kill the viable human being that you carry.”
“That’s an approximate decision,” he concluded, “that’s at least relevant in the discussion you and I are holding.”
As for his own personal opinion, van Alstyne said that, “for the most part, in my own view, the dicta of the court, the history of the treatment of self-preservation, and of constitutional reasoning and text, inevitably lead to the sensible conclusion that indeed there is a fundamental right to save your life by killing another if those are the alternatives confronting one.”
Van Alstyne also expressed the idea that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be implied by the very nature of the Constitution itself.
“If you go back to the philosophic grounds of the Constitution, a social compact, the theory is that we yield power to others, namely a democratic majority, because it’s necessary so that we don’t live according to a law of the jungle – but if government is unable to protect us from the threat of others to kill, why then we never gave to government the power to deprive us of our natural right of human self defense.”
“So,” van Alstyne concluded, “it is always implicit in the social compact that indeed, if it’s necessary to save our lives those of our family, why then we revert to that natural right, and it is protected by the Constitution.”
Judiciary Republicans Delay Vote on Sotomayor
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally delayed a final vote on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, putting off the start of a Senate floor debate until next week at the earliest.
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had hoped to hold a committee vote on Sotomayor’s nomination today, but Republicans invoked their right under the panel’s rules to a one-week delay. The vote will now take place on July 28.
“I have been advised by Sen. Sessions that the Republicans wish to put over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. They have that right to put it over, but we will come back in on Tuesday, rather than Thursday of next week. And we will do that because the U.S. Supreme Court is coming in early for a very unusual case,” Leahy said, referring to the Supreme Court’s rare September hearing of a case challenging key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) seemed resigned to the fact that Sotomayor would ultimately be confirmed to the high court, saying that he expects the floor debate to occur “without delay.”
Following the Judiciary meeting, Leahy said that while he is disappointed Republicans delayed the final committee vote, he still believes that Sotomayor’s installment on the bench is assured.
“The irony is that when we begin the [floor] debate, there won’t be a single Senator, Republican or Democrat, who doesn’t know how he or she is going to vote,” Leahy said.
At least four Republican Senators have said they would support the nomination. All Democrats are expected to vote “yes.”
40 Years Later Chappaquiddick Just Distant Memory
By Don
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/40-years-later-chappaquiddick-just-distant-memory/
Forty years ago today Sen. Ted Kennedy left a party on the island of Chappaquiddick in Martha's Vineyard with a young female passenger to catch the ferry. Instead of heading towards the ferry he somehow managed to drive his car in the wrong direction, then failed to navigate the car over a wooden bridge and wound up upside down in the water.
Kennedy who claimed that he made several unsuccessful attempts to rescue his passenger the 27-year old Mary Jo Kopechne managed to make it safely out of the water and then returned to the party to get help from two other men at the party. After failing in their attempts to help Miss Kopechne Kennedy instructed the men to return to the party and told them he would handle the situation from there. He did so by returning to his hotel room and falling asleep. The next morning at 10 am he reported the accident and it was far too late by then to save Miss Kopechne.
Despite the fact that he was responsible for the death of a young woman, the only punishment Kennedy received was the suspension of his driver's license for one year. He did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident but was given a suspended sentence. A grand jury investigation into the incident failed to yield an indictment.
Kennedy also paid the Kopechne family $90,000 in compensation and then went on his merry way winning re-election in 1970 just a little more than one year after the accident.
To this day several questions remain unanswered.
How did he not notice he was driving the wrong way on an unpaved road?
Was he drunk?
Why did he bypass several homes to get help choosing instead to go back to the party house?
Why didn't he report the accident immediately?
Could Mary Jo Kopechne have been saved?
These are just a few of the many questions that I think the public deserves an answer to.
One would think that with the mainstream media's love affair with scandals like Watergate or the Keating Five and their subsequent anniversaries that maybe they would take a similar interest in Chappaquiddick as it reached another milestone. But obviously That would be putting too much trust in the liberal media to not show its bias especially when it comes to the Kennedy's. A google search today found few if any stories in the mainstream press about this anniversary. Newsweek made a brief reference as did a few other publications, but by and large the media is sweeping this under the rug just like they have ever since it first happened.
As an aside let me say that 30 years ago I took a trip with my father, Les Kinsolving and his son to Martha's Vineyard as a member of the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Society to commemerate the anniversary of the accident. We tried to hand out flyers and were chased out of shops, we tried meeting with the local newspaper run by the Reston family and were rebuffed but we were also undaunted. On the day of the anniversary we erected a sign at the Dike bridge where the accident occurred complete with a memorial service conducted by Les Kinsolving who also threw a wreath over the bridge in memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. Needless to say the sign lasted less than a day and the crowd at the bridge was less than friendly. I learned during that trip that the Kennedy's could do no wrong and that despite the mysterious circumstances surrounding that fateful night the residents didn't really care. No public outcry means no real investigation.
It is a fair bet that we will never know what really happened that night and will be forever speculating on the events that led to the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a U.S. Senator and as time goes on it will sink deeper into the background to the point of being totally forgotten. And that is a real tragedy.
"The e-mail Bag"
WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ
(Passing requires 4 correct answers) NO PEEKING
1) How long did the Hundred Years' War last?
2) Which country makes Panama hats?
3) From which animal do we get cat gut?
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?
7) What was King George VI's first name?
8) What color is a purple finch?
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?
Remember, you need 4 correct answers to pass.
Check your answers below.
ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years
2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador
3) From which animal do we get catgut? Sheep and Horses
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution? November
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal? Dogs
7) What was King George VI's first name? Albert
8) What color is a purple finch? Crimson
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from? New Zealand
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? Orange (of course)
"Daily Motivations"
Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for... -- Joseph Addison
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. -- Will Rogers
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"But if we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong." (1 John 1:9)
God's Word teaches that every Christian should be prepared for battles with sin. There will never be a time in this life when you will be free from temptation. Satan is a real foe, and we must be prepared for both his subtle, cunning ways and his obvious attempts to defeat and destroy us.
There is a difference, however, between temptation and sin. Temptation is the initial impression to do something contrary to God's will. Even Jesus was not immune to temptation. But temptation becomes sin when you meditate on the impression and develop an unholy desire, which is an emotional sin that may be followed by a mental or physical act of disobedience.
So, how do you avoid temptation? First, surrender yourself to the control of the Holy Spirit, trusting Him to direct and empower you. Second, and more practically speaking, you simply recognize your weakness whenever you are tempted and ask the Lord to lead you away from temptation.
"The Patriot Post"
"My anxious recollections, my sympathetic feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." -- George Washington
"When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71
"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization." -- Ronald Reagan
FOR THE RECORD
"Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- First, make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... -- Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... -- Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. -- Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... -- If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... -- Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise.." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg
LIBERTY
"Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback [last week] when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution. It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking. But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. ...[T]he Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground. .... [Hillary Clinton] accused Honduras of violating 'the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter' and said it 'should be condemned by all.' Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government. Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. ... The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and [OAS Secretary General José Miguel] Insulza expose their true colors." -- columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady
"AFA"
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
National Education Association's top lawyer touts their real purpose
Says those who promote traditional values are a group of "right-wing b****rds"
July 21, 2009
PLEASE READ AND THEN FORWARD
The National Education Association's (NEA) top lawyer, Bob Chanin, recently made clear the goal of the NEA. He called those who believe in and work for traditional family values "b****rds." He also praised the NEA because the organization has "power" and "hundreds of millions" of dollars from dues to spend in promoting their agenda and political candidates.
I have included an article which shows, in their own words, what the NEA is doing. It is time for Christians who are members of the NEA to get out. We are funding the demise of Western Civilization. Please read this article!
Chanin's volley left no doubt where the NEA wants to take the public education system, and our children. It also served as a wake-up call for those who might be considering taking their children out of public schools.
If you are a member of NEA, I suggest you contact some more teacher friends and discuss this matter with them.
If you need legal help, I suggest you contact one of the two organizations listed below:
Liberty Council www.lc.org
Alliance Defense Fund www.telladf.org
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Many members of the NEA are not aware how the NEA is using their dues to promote leftwing politics. They can drop their membership in the NEA and secure many of the same benefits by joining other professional organizations which offer the same benefits.
The Association of American Educators is one. You can visit them on the web at www.aaeteachers.org..
Also, Christian Educators offers many of the same benefits. Their website is www.ceai.org.
"The Web"
Trace Adkins and the West Point Cadet Glee Club, USMA, ACM 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0mm4u2VzDs&NR=1
Marginalizing Sarah Palin
by Bill O'Reilly
http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2009/07/18/marginalizing_sarah_palin?page=full&comments=true
About a month ago, in this space, I told you The New York Times had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The Times poll said 57 percent were willing to pay more tax and 37 percent were not willing to do so. But what the Times did not tell its readers was that 48 percent of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Only 25 percent supported John McCain. Of course the poll results would skew left.
Now we have another media deceit. The most recent edition of Newsweek magazine includes a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news -- not an opinion column -- and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that I and other Fox News people lead the dumb GOP folks.
Anyone reading the story would think that a Newsweek correspondent put it together -- the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Perlstein is not a Newsweek correspondent and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Strange.
But it gets even stranger.
Turns out that Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." He lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote: "I've just become a proud Fox (News) attacker. Now, you can, too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."
So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage.
Newsweek magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the editors are upfront about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.
With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and federal intrusion into private business, health care and the environment is unprecedented. The far left aims to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." They also see a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.
In order to accomplish this, leftwing media are marginalizing people like Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930s.
Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.
Report: Fed bailout tab is at least $4.7 trillion
TARP overseer calls Treasury Dept. a poor watchdog. Total is a third of U.S. economy.
By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/843913.html
WASHINGTON The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.
Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.
The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.
The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry equals about one third of the overall U.S. economy. It takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives – the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral, and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount will be used.
Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs, and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.
The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.
Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency-lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs, and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.
Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for fees the government charges or for the collateral many of the programs require.
“While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents ‘potential exposure' associated with them,” Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.
In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability. But, he says, the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.
Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible,” Barofsky said.
“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”
The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.
The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that received TARP money, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn't verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP funds for lending, 43 percent used the federal money to add to their capital cushion, and 31 percent made new investments.
Atheists in the Capitol's Foxhole
by Chuck Norris
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/07/21/atheists_in_the_capitols_foxhole?page=full&comments=true
I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights -- what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.
This month, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions approving the engravings of the national motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center -- a 580,000-square-foot facility under the Capitol -- where 15,500 guests visit each day.
Spearheading the measures were Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who are leaders who also have drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Forbes addressing the House on this matter -- called "Our Judeo-Christian Nation" -- has received about 2.5 million hits to date, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Also, some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can be seen on the YouTube posting called "War on God."
Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, which filed suit in an effort to prevent the engravings.
According to The Associated Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says its lawsuit is based upon the foundations that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our coins and bills, which have "In God We Trust" on them, into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!
Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the claims as ludicrous.
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Lungren said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
And Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices: "This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are 'endowed by our Creator.' If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our Founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
So, could the lawsuit prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument -- that our national motto, "In God We Trust," is unconstitutional.
That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer (202-228-1793 or emalecki@aoc.gov) and also their representatives to inform them about what they think of the engraved national motto and Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.
Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitor Center has a couple of them in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know not only that the motto and pledge are at the heart of our country but also that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.
18 Years old debating the qualifications to be President of The United States?
http://www..sodahead.com/question/370947/18-years-old-debating-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states/
Clueless in Seattle In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born ... Clueless in Seattle
In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
Yep, these are the 18 year olds that just voted for the President of the United States.
(May make you question what are being taught to our children in public schools. - oyh)
Sotomayor Would Not Concede a Right to Self-Defense
CNSNews.com
By Adam Brickley
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivers her opening statement on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing befor the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”
Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”
In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”
Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, “But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”
Sotomayor responded, “I – as I said, I don’t know.”
Later in the exchange, Coburn said, “I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion.”
“But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me,” Sotomayor relied.
William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,” he said.
Van Alstyne told CNSNews.com that the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat” if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).
However, van Alstyne also said that the court has made rulings that indicate a basic right to defend one’s life.
“Interestingly enough,” van Alstyne said, “I think you may find it, as I would, in the court’s abortion cases.”
He asserted that, “even under Roe v. Wade and all of the other decisions, once the fetus has hit the seventh or, at latest, eighth month, it is deemed quote ‘viable.’”
Continuing this line of reasoning, he stated that, “the woman may, nevertheless, get a physician’s willing help to off the fetus – the viable offspring – if it’s necessary to do so either to save her own life or merely to keep her physical health unimpaired.”
“The Roe court,” van Alstyne claimed, “and the current court, in the majority opinion has taken the position that your right to ‘protect your own life’ as a woman gives you an entitlement to kill the viable human being that you carry.”
“That’s an approximate decision,” he concluded, “that’s at least relevant in the discussion you and I are holding.”
As for his own personal opinion, van Alstyne said that, “for the most part, in my own view, the dicta of the court, the history of the treatment of self-preservation, and of constitutional reasoning and text, inevitably lead to the sensible conclusion that indeed there is a fundamental right to save your life by killing another if those are the alternatives confronting one.”
Van Alstyne also expressed the idea that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be implied by the very nature of the Constitution itself.
“If you go back to the philosophic grounds of the Constitution, a social compact, the theory is that we yield power to others, namely a democratic majority, because it’s necessary so that we don’t live according to a law of the jungle – but if government is unable to protect us from the threat of others to kill, why then we never gave to government the power to deprive us of our natural right of human self defense.”
“So,” van Alstyne concluded, “it is always implicit in the social compact that indeed, if it’s necessary to save our lives those of our family, why then we revert to that natural right, and it is protected by the Constitution.”
Judiciary Republicans Delay Vote on Sotomayor
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally delayed a final vote on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, putting off the start of a Senate floor debate until next week at the earliest.
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had hoped to hold a committee vote on Sotomayor’s nomination today, but Republicans invoked their right under the panel’s rules to a one-week delay. The vote will now take place on July 28.
“I have been advised by Sen. Sessions that the Republicans wish to put over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. They have that right to put it over, but we will come back in on Tuesday, rather than Thursday of next week. And we will do that because the U.S. Supreme Court is coming in early for a very unusual case,” Leahy said, referring to the Supreme Court’s rare September hearing of a case challenging key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) seemed resigned to the fact that Sotomayor would ultimately be confirmed to the high court, saying that he expects the floor debate to occur “without delay.”
Following the Judiciary meeting, Leahy said that while he is disappointed Republicans delayed the final committee vote, he still believes that Sotomayor’s installment on the bench is assured.
“The irony is that when we begin the [floor] debate, there won’t be a single Senator, Republican or Democrat, who doesn’t know how he or she is going to vote,” Leahy said.
At least four Republican Senators have said they would support the nomination. All Democrats are expected to vote “yes.”
40 Years Later Chappaquiddick Just Distant Memory
By Don
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/40-years-later-chappaquiddick-just-distant-memory/
Forty years ago today Sen. Ted Kennedy left a party on the island of Chappaquiddick in Martha's Vineyard with a young female passenger to catch the ferry. Instead of heading towards the ferry he somehow managed to drive his car in the wrong direction, then failed to navigate the car over a wooden bridge and wound up upside down in the water.
Kennedy who claimed that he made several unsuccessful attempts to rescue his passenger the 27-year old Mary Jo Kopechne managed to make it safely out of the water and then returned to the party to get help from two other men at the party. After failing in their attempts to help Miss Kopechne Kennedy instructed the men to return to the party and told them he would handle the situation from there. He did so by returning to his hotel room and falling asleep. The next morning at 10 am he reported the accident and it was far too late by then to save Miss Kopechne.
Despite the fact that he was responsible for the death of a young woman, the only punishment Kennedy received was the suspension of his driver's license for one year. He did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident but was given a suspended sentence. A grand jury investigation into the incident failed to yield an indictment.
Kennedy also paid the Kopechne family $90,000 in compensation and then went on his merry way winning re-election in 1970 just a little more than one year after the accident.
To this day several questions remain unanswered.
How did he not notice he was driving the wrong way on an unpaved road?
Was he drunk?
Why did he bypass several homes to get help choosing instead to go back to the party house?
Why didn't he report the accident immediately?
Could Mary Jo Kopechne have been saved?
These are just a few of the many questions that I think the public deserves an answer to.
One would think that with the mainstream media's love affair with scandals like Watergate or the Keating Five and their subsequent anniversaries that maybe they would take a similar interest in Chappaquiddick as it reached another milestone. But obviously That would be putting too much trust in the liberal media to not show its bias especially when it comes to the Kennedy's. A google search today found few if any stories in the mainstream press about this anniversary. Newsweek made a brief reference as did a few other publications, but by and large the media is sweeping this under the rug just like they have ever since it first happened.
As an aside let me say that 30 years ago I took a trip with my father, Les Kinsolving and his son to Martha's Vineyard as a member of the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Society to commemerate the anniversary of the accident. We tried to hand out flyers and were chased out of shops, we tried meeting with the local newspaper run by the Reston family and were rebuffed but we were also undaunted. On the day of the anniversary we erected a sign at the Dike bridge where the accident occurred complete with a memorial service conducted by Les Kinsolving who also threw a wreath over the bridge in memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. Needless to say the sign lasted less than a day and the crowd at the bridge was less than friendly. I learned during that trip that the Kennedy's could do no wrong and that despite the mysterious circumstances surrounding that fateful night the residents didn't really care. No public outcry means no real investigation.
It is a fair bet that we will never know what really happened that night and will be forever speculating on the events that led to the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a U.S. Senator and as time goes on it will sink deeper into the background to the point of being totally forgotten. And that is a real tragedy.
"The e-mail Bag"
WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ
(Passing requires 4 correct answers) NO PEEKING
1) How long did the Hundred Years' War last?
2) Which country makes Panama hats?
3) From which animal do we get cat gut?
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?
7) What was King George VI's first name?
8) What color is a purple finch?
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?
Remember, you need 4 correct answers to pass.
Check your answers below.
ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years
2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador
3) From which animal do we get catgut? Sheep and Horses
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution? November
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal? Dogs
7) What was King George VI's first name? Albert
8) What color is a purple finch? Crimson
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from? New Zealand
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? Orange (of course)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090721
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
The most important things in life aren't things. -- Anthony D'Angelo
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life has gone; a new life has begun!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)
A businessman was selling a warehouse property that had been empty for months. Vandals had smashed the windows, damaged the doors, and strewn trash around the inside. As he showed the property to a prospective buyer, he explained that he would replace the broken windows, correct any structural damage, and clean out the garbage.
"Forget about the repairs," the buyer said. "When I buy this place, I'm going to build something completely different. I don't want the building; I want the site."
It is the same with our loving Father. God is not simply sweeping a warehouse slated for the wrecking ball. He is building something completely new. All He wants is the site and the permission to build.
When you became a Christian, you became a new person. The core of who you are is no longer the same. All your sins---past, present, and future---are forgiven, and Christ has clothed you in His righteousness.
Jesus exchanged our rags for His righteousness---and we will be clothed in His righteous garments for all eternity. Our old nature no longer has power over us because we have a completely new identity.
"The Patriot Post"
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." -- Leviticus 25:10 Inscription on the Liberty Bell
"NRA"
Joint Statement On Judge Sotomayor's Nomination To The U.S. Supreme Court
By NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5060
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on 19th century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend our loved ones and ourselves is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
"The Web"
A lot of church members who are singing 'Standing on the Promises' are just sitting on the premises.
We were called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges.
Elvis Presley: A Tribute to our Flag
http://home.comcast.net/~nw-fla/tribute_flag_B_thompson.htm
Obama Care in 60 seconds or less
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_care_in_60_seconds_or_le.html
Update from Oklahoma!
http://www.examiner.com/x-3678-Baltimore-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d5-Update-from-Oklahoma
I received this from a friend in Oklahoma, I added the laws after I confirmed them all, Maybe I'll move to Oklahoma!
The state law passed today, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! Guess what..........We did it anyway. HB 1330
We recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from, unless they want to get a green card and/or become an American citizen. They all scattered. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what..........we did it anyway. HB 1804
Yesterday we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. Guess what........We did it anyway. SB 1102
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. That, for your information, makes Oklahoma and Texas the only states to do so. Guess what.........More states are likely to follow. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, just to name a few. Should Mississippi act, so will Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the Kennedys and Ms Pelosi.
Guess what..........We did it anyway. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 3-0
By the way, Obama does not like any of this.
Guess what....who cares...were doing it anyway.
Justice Isn’t Blind for the President or His Supreme Court Nominee
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/Justice-Isnt-Blind-for-the-President-or-His-Supreme-Court-Nominee.htm
The Memorial Day weekend was barely over when President Barack Obama announced his choice of who would get his Supreme Court nomination. While most Americans were just beginning their holiday-shortened work week, we learned that the “empathetic” nominee the President had been looking for was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
What we didn’t hear, however, was that both the President and his nominee believe more in the rule of a judge’s personal “experiences” and “perspectives” than in the rule of law.
Sure, that wasn’t what either explicitly stated in their remarks delivered from the White House on Tuesday morning. But that was what was perfectly clear if you listened carefully to what both meant, not to mention what both had said in the past.
To be fair, what Americans did hear if they tuned in to the carefully choreographed and scripted nomination announcement was that President Obama believes a Supreme Court justice must “[f]irst and foremost” possess “a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key legal issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions,” and “[s]econd” recognize “the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law.”
Okay, that’s the typical boilerplate language — the perfectly obvious and universally accepted prerequisites to being confirmed to the singular Court that has the final word on what is, and what isn’t, “the supreme Law of the Land.”
But the President didn’t limit himself to that pair of requirements. According to President Obama, “We need something more” from our next Supreme Court justice because “th[o]se qualities alone are insufficient.”
Then it came, the President’s subtle acknowledgement that — in spite of his just stated and publicly acceptable criteria — “a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court” is “experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.” Or, in words President Obama had previously used to describe what he would look for in a justice, “the critical ingredient” of a fair jurist “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
Think about that for a moment. The President of the United States — the man whose constitutional duty and solemn oath is to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — believes that “the critical ingredient” necessary in a Supreme Court justice is not to faithfully interpret and apply the laws and Constitution of the United States as written and enacted, but rather “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
That’s why the rest of the President’s introduction of his Supreme Court nominee focused not on Judge Sotomayor’s legal acumen or her judicial restraint, but instead on her “breadth of perspective that will be invaluable” because, according to the President, she has “a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.”
This was President Obama’s publicly acceptable way of saying now what he had argued more forcefully in the past — that a justice should make her rulings “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In other words, a judge should “bring in … her own perspectives, … her own ethics, … her own moral bearings” in deciding cases — even when none of those have any relation to, and may even conflict with the law actually enacted by the political branches elected by “We the People.”
This is why the President thought it relevant to observe that Judge Sotomayor “will bring to the Court … not only the knowledge and experience acquired over [the] course of a brilliant legal career, but [also] the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.”
Like the President, Judge Sotomayor used subtle, publicly acceptable language at the ceremony to hint at her willingness to apply her personal preferences from the bench.
Specifically, Judge Sotomayor explained that she always “strive[d] never to forget the real-world consequences of [her] decisions” – that was the nice and disguised way acknowledging that she allows her personal sympathies to play a role in her judicial decision-making process. In other words, for Judge Sotomayor, justice isn’t blind.
In past statements, Judge Sotomayor has been far more blunt. In fact, a little less than two weeks before President Obama nominated her, Judge Sotomayor was the subject of a New York Times story that strung together a number of the Judge’s previous speeches and statements that demonstrate just how activist she believes a jurist is entitled to be.
The statement that has gotten the most attention is her comment at a Duke Law School panel discussion for students interested in becoming federal law clerks, where, in touting the advantages of an appeals (rather than a trial court clerkship), Judge Sotomayor explained her belief that “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
But even more frightening than Judge Sotomayor’s belief that it is entirely proper for unelected judges — rather than the American people’s elected representatives — to make policy is her belief that judges who make policy can do so on the basis of their own personal moral, political and policy preferences.
Indeed, as noted in that New York Times story — no bastion of conservative sentiment – “Judge Sotomayor [has] questioned whether achieving [judicial] impartiality ‘is possible at all, or even, in most, cases.” And, in that speech, Judge Sotomayor went on to add, “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
Those comments came in a revealing speech Judge Sotomayor gave at the University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law in 2001, and the excerpts quoted in the New York Times piece were just the tip of the iceberg.
Later in the lecture, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” As a result, Judge Sotomayor agreed with one of her former law school classmates, Harvard Law School Professor Martha Minnow, quoting her belief that “there is no objective [judicial] stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.”
As a result, Judge Sotomayor not only stated her belief that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” going on to make the even more incendiary remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Indeed, if it wasn’t clear from those comments, Judge Sotomayor went on to explicitly state her belief that it is entirely appropriate for her to impose her own personal moral, political and policy preference through her seat on the federal bench, explaining, “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt … continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
All of this is, of course, more than troubling for a country that was founded on the principle of the rule of law and not of men.
As former U.S. Solicitor General and federal appeals court Judge Kenneth Starr told Fox News: “It’s not [a judge’s] job at all to make policy. It rather is for the Congress [or for the President] or for the governor or the legislature to make policy, and for [a judge] to interpret the law as given to [her].”
But that’s only if you truly and deeply believe that, under the rule of law, justice is and should be blind. The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Court has made it clear that neither President Obama, nor the nominee he chose, believe that to be true. Instead, they believe justice isn’t blind and so America’s rule of law must yield to the rule of men, and in this case, women. That should trouble all Americans.
Confessions of a gov junketeer
By Jeanette Colville
This week's dust-up over a mere $700,000 federal employees "group-hug" at the ritzy Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix made me chuckle. Ah, the memories that story brought back from my twenty-five years as an authentic, although sometimes reluctant, gov junketeer.
Oh yes, ask any retired federal government employee and they'll tell you that the "motivational" management conference has always been the norm, rather than the exception, regardless of the dark winds of ObamaNomics. ABC Reporter Josh Bernstein provides an update on the Phoenix gov junketeers who had the misfortune to be observed by the media.
What a naïve young woman I was when I raised my hand in front of the American flag and took the oath of a government civil service employee. Silly me, I had the naïve impression that civil service meant that I would be serving American citizens -- our agency's customers. My mindset was: What can I do to serve the public? Watching those around me, it didn't take long to catch on that the mindset among the more experienced government employees was a little different; it went like this: What can the government do to serve me?
For a civil service novice, this mindset becomes all too visible in the unfolding of the endless stream of agency "conferences," both regional and national, orchestrated under the themes of motivational enhancement, stress management, time management, total quality management, and team building -- you name it, the government sponsored it, and you, the taxpayer, paid for it.
Gov junketeers were offered a wide range of "conference" settings -- the Colorado Rockies, the Arizona desert, the ski slopes of Utah, Alaska snowscapes, the beaches of Hawaii, and the big city nightlife in D.C. and New Orleans. My last all-expense-paid weeklong group hug was at the lavish Phoenix Camelback Inn - perfect for golf lovers
For those Alaska gov junketeers feeling a touch of the long dark winter blues, we hosted an employee management team conference in sunny Hawaii at the beachfront Kona Village Resort. Hula dancing and luau all part of the team building.
For fans of urban shopping and river walking, we gathered at the Portland Marriott Residence Inn. Fine dining and motivational bonding in a trendy setting.
Do you like to ski? Where else than Park City, Utah for a grand interagency gathering to watch ethnic dancers and feast at a motivational banquet. Accommodations included cozy suites with working fireplaces.
A true gov junketeer learns how to take advantage of much more than just the all expense paid fine dining, luxury accommodations, airfare, and cash reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses. If one watches veteran gov junketeers closely, one learns the fine art of advanced vacation junketeering.
While attending a week-long government employee "retirement training" conference at a resort in Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, I noticed that a coworker attended the first session on the first day, and then disappeared for the rest of the week, reappearing on the morning of the final day. Where had he been? Hiking in the mountains, he said, laughing.
When attending a gov junketeer conference in Albuquerque, a coworker attending the first morning of the first day of the week-long conference disappeared for the next four days, arriving back just in time for the closing session. Where had he been? Bird watching all over New Mexico, he said, thanks to having access to a government-paid rental car and gas card.
Other popular gov junketeer motivational conference sites I attended included the luxury Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage overlooking the Cook Inlet. Motivational activities included trips to view glaciers and watch Sockeye salmon runs.
Tired of mountains and deserts? How about a gov junket to the rugged Oregon Coast? The Shalishan Resort is a popular "retreat" for serious team building, in between golf, tennis, and treatments at the spa.
Skilled gov junketeers learn the ropes quickly and never head to the airport without a handful of official government forms giving them tax-free status on all charges and on personal travel allowance reimbursements.
I estimate the cumulative costs to the hard working American taxpayer for my gov junkets over twenty-five years of civil service employment at a minimum of $35,000 -- and for that investment, whether I was in D.C., Denver, Anchorage, Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Reno, I learned how to stretch my arms behind my back (a motivational training exercise), why America is an evil place because of the income gap (motivational banquet keynote speaker at Ft. Collins, Colorado), and how to play a game with five other people called: Stranded on a Desert Island (a motivational team building exercise).
I was but one tiny cog in but one federal agency. If you think AIG spent a lot of money on entertaining its executives in style, they were pikers compared to Uncle Sam.
Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First U.S. Conference
Diane Macedo
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html
YouTube
The Khilafah Conference 2009 is scheduled to be held July 19, 2009 at the Hilton Oak Lawn hotel.
A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda in Iraq's onetime leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It has operated discreetly in the U.S. for decades.
Now, it is coming out of the shadows and openly hosting a July 19 conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," at a posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.
Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it does not engage in terrorism, and it is not recognized by the State Department as a known terror group.
But some terrorism experts say it may be even more dangerous than many groups that are on the terror list.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism," Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com.
Phares said that Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than training members to carry out terrorist acts like Al Qaeda, focuses instead on indoctrinating youths between ages of 9 and 18 to absorb the ideology that calls for the formation of an empire — or "khilafah" — that will rule according to Islamic law and condones any means to achieve it, including militant jihad.
Hizb ut-Tahrir often says that its indoctrination "prepares the infantry" that groups like Al Qaeda take into battle, Phares said.
"It's like a middle school that prepares them to be recruited by the high school, which is Al Qaeda," he said. "One would compare them to Hitler youth. ... It's an extremely dangerous organization."
Phares said Hizb ut-Tahrir has strongholds in Western countries, including Britain, France and Spain, and clearly is looking to strengthen its base in the U.S.
"The aim of this conference is to recruit within the Muslim community in America," he said. "The Middle East governments go after them, but in the U.S. they are protected, so having a base here is going to help their cells around the world."
Representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir declined to comment when contacted by FOXNews.com.
Oren Segal, director of Islamic Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, said the conference is cause for concern.
"While they're not, for the most part, engaging in violent activities, and they publicly say that they're against violence, there have been examples around the world where people who have spun off of this group have engaged in violent activity," Segal told FOXNews.com. "That's why they're banned in several Arab and Central Asian countries, as well as Germany and Russia."
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of the group's most famous alumni, New Statesman journalist Shiv Malik reported, citing intelligence sources. In addition to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he also is implicated in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the Bali nightclub bombings and the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
Malik's report, the public policy institute the Nixon Center and the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation agree that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until he was killed in June 2006, was also once a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
They say other former members include Asif Muhammad Hanif, a British man who blew himself up outside a bar in Tel Aviv, killing four people (including himself) and wounding more than 50; and Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical cleric currently banned from Britain who praised the 9/11 attacks, raised funds for Hezbollah and Hamas and called for attacks on the Dublin airport because U.S. troops transferred there on their way to Iraq.
Segal said Hizb ut-Tahrir is becoming more active online in the U.S. — particularly on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace — and now it may be able to add a significant number of Americans to its ranks.
But one place the group will likely not be recruiting is a local Islamic school that backed out of hosting the conference.
The non-profit Aqsa school in Bridgeview said Hizb ut-Tahrir had deceptively portrayed the conference as a bazaar-type event where traditional food and clothing would be sold.
"They misrepresented themselves and the event. We don't want to be in the middle of something like that," the school's business manager Rana Jaber, told CBS News.
The conference's new venue doesn't seem to mind.
Hilton Oak Lawn General Manager Rick Harmon said Hizb ut-Tahrir used its own name and was open about the nature of the event, which includes lectures entitled "Capitalism is Doomed to Fail," "The Global Rise of Islam," and the "Role of Muslims in America," when it reserved the room for the conference.
"We're United States citizens and an American business — if it's legal, we're able to host it, as long as it's nothing that disrupts our other guests' privacy and security," Harmon told FOXNews.com.
According to the Khilafah Conference 2009 Web site, the group aims to do neither.
"Hizb-ut-Tahrir is convinced that change must start in the minds of people, and therefore does not accept for people, or societies, to be forced to change by means of violence and terror," it reads.
The site, which includes a promotional YouTube video, says the group "does not work in the West to change the system of government, but works to project a positive image of Islam to Western society."
Click here to see the conference video.
But former member Ishtiaq Hussain said Hizb ut-Tahrir is repackaging itself as a moderate organization as a tactic, while in reality it is "extremist."
"They don't recognize countries like Israel, for example; they don’t believe Israel should exist," Hussain, now a trainer for the Quilliam Foundation, told FOXNews.com. "Some of their leaders have denied the Holocaust, and they believe homosexuals should be thrown off the highest building. ... It's actually a very dangerous group."
Hizb ut-Tahrir itself has also published writings that seem to contradict its tenet of non-violence.
In his book, "How the Khilafah Was Destroyed," Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, the former global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, says anyone who rules by a non-Islamic system should "either retract or be killed ... even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers."
Click here to read the full excerpt.
Hizb ut-Tahrir's official ruling on the permissibility of hijacking planes says, "If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it."
Click here to read the full ruling (pdf).
And one of the organization's more recent leaflets, published in March, calls for the declaration of "a state of war against America."
Click here to read the leaflet.
But, despite these threats and calls to action, Hizb ut-Tahrir remains off the State Department's terror watch list, and it is free to host the Khilafah Conference and any other event like it.
"In other parts of the world where they're really very active, they've drawn tens of thousands of people to some of their events," Segal said.
"It'll be interesting to see to what degree they'll be welcomed here."
These contractors are installing the steel pillars in concrete to stop vehicles from parking...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7372208
...on the pavement outside a Sports Bar downtown. They are now in the process of cleaning up at the end of the day and anxious to go home. How long do you think it will be before they realize where *their* vehicle is parked?
LIFE IN THE 1500'S
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the1500s:
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying. It's raining cats and dogs.
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, dirt poor. The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, bring home the bacon. They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all
sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave.. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a ....dead ringer.
And that's the truth. Now, whoever said history was boring?
Educate someone. Share these facts with a friend.
"The e-mail Bag"
TO ALL MY AMAZING FRIENDS!!!!
I would never trade my amazing friends, my wonderful life, my loving family for less gray hair or a flatter belly. As I've aged, I've become kinder to myself, and less critical of myself. I've become my own friend. I don't chide myself for eating that extra cookie, or for not making my bed, or for buying that silly cement ornament that I didn't need, but looks so avante garde on my patio. I am entitled to a treat, to be messy, to be extravagant.
I have seen too many dear friends leave this world too soon, before they understood the great freedom that comes with aging. Whose business is it if I choose to read or play on the computer until 4 AM and sleep until noon? I will dance with myself to those wonderful tunes of the 60's &70's, and if I, at the same time, wish to weep over a lost love ... I will.
I will walk the beach in a swim suit that is stretched over a bulging body, and will dive into the waves with abandon if I choose to, despite the pitying glances from the jet set. They, too, will get old.
I know I am sometimes forgetful. But there again, some of life is just as well forgotten. And I eventually remember the important things.
Sure, over the years my heart has been broken. How can your heart not break when you lose a loved one, or when a child suffers, or even when somebody's beloved pet gets hit by a car? But broken hearts are what give us strength and understanding and compassion. A heart never broken is pristine and sterile and will never know the joy of being imperfect.
I am so blessed to have lived long enough to have my hair turning gray, and to have my youthful laughs be forever etched into deep grooves on my face. So many have never laughed, and so many have died before their hair could turn silver.
As you get older, it is easier to be positive. You care less about what other people think. I don't question myself anymore. I've even earned the right to be wrong.
So, to answer your question, I like being older. It has set me free. I like the person I have become I am not going to live forever, but while I am still here, I will not waste time lamenting what could have been, or worrying about what will be. And I shall eat dessert every single day (if I feel like it).
MAY OUR FRIENDSHIP NEVER COME APART, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART!
"Daily Motivations"
The most important things in life aren't things. -- Anthony D'Angelo
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life has gone; a new life has begun!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)
A businessman was selling a warehouse property that had been empty for months. Vandals had smashed the windows, damaged the doors, and strewn trash around the inside. As he showed the property to a prospective buyer, he explained that he would replace the broken windows, correct any structural damage, and clean out the garbage.
"Forget about the repairs," the buyer said. "When I buy this place, I'm going to build something completely different. I don't want the building; I want the site."
It is the same with our loving Father. God is not simply sweeping a warehouse slated for the wrecking ball. He is building something completely new. All He wants is the site and the permission to build.
When you became a Christian, you became a new person. The core of who you are is no longer the same. All your sins---past, present, and future---are forgiven, and Christ has clothed you in His righteousness.
Jesus exchanged our rags for His righteousness---and we will be clothed in His righteous garments for all eternity. Our old nature no longer has power over us because we have a completely new identity.
"The Patriot Post"
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." -- Leviticus 25:10 Inscription on the Liberty Bell
"NRA"
Joint Statement On Judge Sotomayor's Nomination To The U.S. Supreme Court
By NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5060
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on 19th century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend our loved ones and ourselves is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
"The Web"
A lot of church members who are singing 'Standing on the Promises' are just sitting on the premises.
We were called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges.
Elvis Presley: A Tribute to our Flag
http://home.comcast.net/~nw-fla/tribute_flag_B_thompson.htm
Obama Care in 60 seconds or less
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_care_in_60_seconds_or_le.html
Update from Oklahoma!
http://www.examiner.com/x-3678-Baltimore-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d5-Update-from-Oklahoma
I received this from a friend in Oklahoma, I added the laws after I confirmed them all, Maybe I'll move to Oklahoma!
The state law passed today, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! Guess what..........We did it anyway. HB 1330
We recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from, unless they want to get a green card and/or become an American citizen. They all scattered. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what..........we did it anyway. HB 1804
Yesterday we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. Guess what........We did it anyway. SB 1102
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. That, for your information, makes Oklahoma and Texas the only states to do so. Guess what.........More states are likely to follow. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, just to name a few. Should Mississippi act, so will Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the Kennedys and Ms Pelosi.
Guess what..........We did it anyway. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 3-0
By the way, Obama does not like any of this.
Guess what....who cares...were doing it anyway.
Justice Isn’t Blind for the President or His Supreme Court Nominee
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/Justice-Isnt-Blind-for-the-President-or-His-Supreme-Court-Nominee.htm
The Memorial Day weekend was barely over when President Barack Obama announced his choice of who would get his Supreme Court nomination. While most Americans were just beginning their holiday-shortened work week, we learned that the “empathetic” nominee the President had been looking for was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
What we didn’t hear, however, was that both the President and his nominee believe more in the rule of a judge’s personal “experiences” and “perspectives” than in the rule of law.
Sure, that wasn’t what either explicitly stated in their remarks delivered from the White House on Tuesday morning. But that was what was perfectly clear if you listened carefully to what both meant, not to mention what both had said in the past.
To be fair, what Americans did hear if they tuned in to the carefully choreographed and scripted nomination announcement was that President Obama believes a Supreme Court justice must “[f]irst and foremost” possess “a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key legal issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions,” and “[s]econd” recognize “the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law.”
Okay, that’s the typical boilerplate language — the perfectly obvious and universally accepted prerequisites to being confirmed to the singular Court that has the final word on what is, and what isn’t, “the supreme Law of the Land.”
But the President didn’t limit himself to that pair of requirements. According to President Obama, “We need something more” from our next Supreme Court justice because “th[o]se qualities alone are insufficient.”
Then it came, the President’s subtle acknowledgement that — in spite of his just stated and publicly acceptable criteria — “a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court” is “experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.” Or, in words President Obama had previously used to describe what he would look for in a justice, “the critical ingredient” of a fair jurist “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
Think about that for a moment. The President of the United States — the man whose constitutional duty and solemn oath is to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — believes that “the critical ingredient” necessary in a Supreme Court justice is not to faithfully interpret and apply the laws and Constitution of the United States as written and enacted, but rather “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
That’s why the rest of the President’s introduction of his Supreme Court nominee focused not on Judge Sotomayor’s legal acumen or her judicial restraint, but instead on her “breadth of perspective that will be invaluable” because, according to the President, she has “a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.”
This was President Obama’s publicly acceptable way of saying now what he had argued more forcefully in the past — that a justice should make her rulings “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In other words, a judge should “bring in … her own perspectives, … her own ethics, … her own moral bearings” in deciding cases — even when none of those have any relation to, and may even conflict with the law actually enacted by the political branches elected by “We the People.”
This is why the President thought it relevant to observe that Judge Sotomayor “will bring to the Court … not only the knowledge and experience acquired over [the] course of a brilliant legal career, but [also] the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.”
Like the President, Judge Sotomayor used subtle, publicly acceptable language at the ceremony to hint at her willingness to apply her personal preferences from the bench.
Specifically, Judge Sotomayor explained that she always “strive[d] never to forget the real-world consequences of [her] decisions” – that was the nice and disguised way acknowledging that she allows her personal sympathies to play a role in her judicial decision-making process. In other words, for Judge Sotomayor, justice isn’t blind.
In past statements, Judge Sotomayor has been far more blunt. In fact, a little less than two weeks before President Obama nominated her, Judge Sotomayor was the subject of a New York Times story that strung together a number of the Judge’s previous speeches and statements that demonstrate just how activist she believes a jurist is entitled to be.
The statement that has gotten the most attention is her comment at a Duke Law School panel discussion for students interested in becoming federal law clerks, where, in touting the advantages of an appeals (rather than a trial court clerkship), Judge Sotomayor explained her belief that “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
But even more frightening than Judge Sotomayor’s belief that it is entirely proper for unelected judges — rather than the American people’s elected representatives — to make policy is her belief that judges who make policy can do so on the basis of their own personal moral, political and policy preferences.
Indeed, as noted in that New York Times story — no bastion of conservative sentiment – “Judge Sotomayor [has] questioned whether achieving [judicial] impartiality ‘is possible at all, or even, in most, cases.” And, in that speech, Judge Sotomayor went on to add, “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
Those comments came in a revealing speech Judge Sotomayor gave at the University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law in 2001, and the excerpts quoted in the New York Times piece were just the tip of the iceberg.
Later in the lecture, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” As a result, Judge Sotomayor agreed with one of her former law school classmates, Harvard Law School Professor Martha Minnow, quoting her belief that “there is no objective [judicial] stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.”
As a result, Judge Sotomayor not only stated her belief that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” going on to make the even more incendiary remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Indeed, if it wasn’t clear from those comments, Judge Sotomayor went on to explicitly state her belief that it is entirely appropriate for her to impose her own personal moral, political and policy preference through her seat on the federal bench, explaining, “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt … continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
All of this is, of course, more than troubling for a country that was founded on the principle of the rule of law and not of men.
As former U.S. Solicitor General and federal appeals court Judge Kenneth Starr told Fox News: “It’s not [a judge’s] job at all to make policy. It rather is for the Congress [or for the President] or for the governor or the legislature to make policy, and for [a judge] to interpret the law as given to [her].”
But that’s only if you truly and deeply believe that, under the rule of law, justice is and should be blind. The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Court has made it clear that neither President Obama, nor the nominee he chose, believe that to be true. Instead, they believe justice isn’t blind and so America’s rule of law must yield to the rule of men, and in this case, women. That should trouble all Americans.
Confessions of a gov junketeer
By Jeanette Colville
This week's dust-up over a mere $700,000 federal employees "group-hug" at the ritzy Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix made me chuckle. Ah, the memories that story brought back from my twenty-five years as an authentic, although sometimes reluctant, gov junketeer.
Oh yes, ask any retired federal government employee and they'll tell you that the "motivational" management conference has always been the norm, rather than the exception, regardless of the dark winds of ObamaNomics. ABC Reporter Josh Bernstein provides an update on the Phoenix gov junketeers who had the misfortune to be observed by the media.
What a naïve young woman I was when I raised my hand in front of the American flag and took the oath of a government civil service employee. Silly me, I had the naïve impression that civil service meant that I would be serving American citizens -- our agency's customers. My mindset was: What can I do to serve the public? Watching those around me, it didn't take long to catch on that the mindset among the more experienced government employees was a little different; it went like this: What can the government do to serve me?
For a civil service novice, this mindset becomes all too visible in the unfolding of the endless stream of agency "conferences," both regional and national, orchestrated under the themes of motivational enhancement, stress management, time management, total quality management, and team building -- you name it, the government sponsored it, and you, the taxpayer, paid for it.
Gov junketeers were offered a wide range of "conference" settings -- the Colorado Rockies, the Arizona desert, the ski slopes of Utah, Alaska snowscapes, the beaches of Hawaii, and the big city nightlife in D.C. and New Orleans. My last all-expense-paid weeklong group hug was at the lavish Phoenix Camelback Inn - perfect for golf lovers
For those Alaska gov junketeers feeling a touch of the long dark winter blues, we hosted an employee management team conference in sunny Hawaii at the beachfront Kona Village Resort. Hula dancing and luau all part of the team building.
For fans of urban shopping and river walking, we gathered at the Portland Marriott Residence Inn. Fine dining and motivational bonding in a trendy setting.
Do you like to ski? Where else than Park City, Utah for a grand interagency gathering to watch ethnic dancers and feast at a motivational banquet. Accommodations included cozy suites with working fireplaces.
A true gov junketeer learns how to take advantage of much more than just the all expense paid fine dining, luxury accommodations, airfare, and cash reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses. If one watches veteran gov junketeers closely, one learns the fine art of advanced vacation junketeering.
While attending a week-long government employee "retirement training" conference at a resort in Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, I noticed that a coworker attended the first session on the first day, and then disappeared for the rest of the week, reappearing on the morning of the final day. Where had he been? Hiking in the mountains, he said, laughing.
When attending a gov junketeer conference in Albuquerque, a coworker attending the first morning of the first day of the week-long conference disappeared for the next four days, arriving back just in time for the closing session. Where had he been? Bird watching all over New Mexico, he said, thanks to having access to a government-paid rental car and gas card.
Other popular gov junketeer motivational conference sites I attended included the luxury Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage overlooking the Cook Inlet. Motivational activities included trips to view glaciers and watch Sockeye salmon runs.
Tired of mountains and deserts? How about a gov junket to the rugged Oregon Coast? The Shalishan Resort is a popular "retreat" for serious team building, in between golf, tennis, and treatments at the spa.
Skilled gov junketeers learn the ropes quickly and never head to the airport without a handful of official government forms giving them tax-free status on all charges and on personal travel allowance reimbursements.
I estimate the cumulative costs to the hard working American taxpayer for my gov junkets over twenty-five years of civil service employment at a minimum of $35,000 -- and for that investment, whether I was in D.C., Denver, Anchorage, Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Reno, I learned how to stretch my arms behind my back (a motivational training exercise), why America is an evil place because of the income gap (motivational banquet keynote speaker at Ft. Collins, Colorado), and how to play a game with five other people called: Stranded on a Desert Island (a motivational team building exercise).
I was but one tiny cog in but one federal agency. If you think AIG spent a lot of money on entertaining its executives in style, they were pikers compared to Uncle Sam.
Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First U.S. Conference
Diane Macedo
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html
YouTube
The Khilafah Conference 2009 is scheduled to be held July 19, 2009 at the Hilton Oak Lawn hotel.
A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda in Iraq's onetime leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It has operated discreetly in the U.S. for decades.
Now, it is coming out of the shadows and openly hosting a July 19 conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," at a posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.
Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it does not engage in terrorism, and it is not recognized by the State Department as a known terror group.
But some terrorism experts say it may be even more dangerous than many groups that are on the terror list.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism," Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com.
Phares said that Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than training members to carry out terrorist acts like Al Qaeda, focuses instead on indoctrinating youths between ages of 9 and 18 to absorb the ideology that calls for the formation of an empire — or "khilafah" — that will rule according to Islamic law and condones any means to achieve it, including militant jihad.
Hizb ut-Tahrir often says that its indoctrination "prepares the infantry" that groups like Al Qaeda take into battle, Phares said.
"It's like a middle school that prepares them to be recruited by the high school, which is Al Qaeda," he said. "One would compare them to Hitler youth. ... It's an extremely dangerous organization."
Phares said Hizb ut-Tahrir has strongholds in Western countries, including Britain, France and Spain, and clearly is looking to strengthen its base in the U.S.
"The aim of this conference is to recruit within the Muslim community in America," he said. "The Middle East governments go after them, but in the U.S. they are protected, so having a base here is going to help their cells around the world."
Representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir declined to comment when contacted by FOXNews.com.
Oren Segal, director of Islamic Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, said the conference is cause for concern.
"While they're not, for the most part, engaging in violent activities, and they publicly say that they're against violence, there have been examples around the world where people who have spun off of this group have engaged in violent activity," Segal told FOXNews.com. "That's why they're banned in several Arab and Central Asian countries, as well as Germany and Russia."
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of the group's most famous alumni, New Statesman journalist Shiv Malik reported, citing intelligence sources. In addition to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he also is implicated in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the Bali nightclub bombings and the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
Malik's report, the public policy institute the Nixon Center and the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation agree that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until he was killed in June 2006, was also once a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
They say other former members include Asif Muhammad Hanif, a British man who blew himself up outside a bar in Tel Aviv, killing four people (including himself) and wounding more than 50; and Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical cleric currently banned from Britain who praised the 9/11 attacks, raised funds for Hezbollah and Hamas and called for attacks on the Dublin airport because U.S. troops transferred there on their way to Iraq.
Segal said Hizb ut-Tahrir is becoming more active online in the U.S. — particularly on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace — and now it may be able to add a significant number of Americans to its ranks.
But one place the group will likely not be recruiting is a local Islamic school that backed out of hosting the conference.
The non-profit Aqsa school in Bridgeview said Hizb ut-Tahrir had deceptively portrayed the conference as a bazaar-type event where traditional food and clothing would be sold.
"They misrepresented themselves and the event. We don't want to be in the middle of something like that," the school's business manager Rana Jaber, told CBS News.
The conference's new venue doesn't seem to mind.
Hilton Oak Lawn General Manager Rick Harmon said Hizb ut-Tahrir used its own name and was open about the nature of the event, which includes lectures entitled "Capitalism is Doomed to Fail," "The Global Rise of Islam," and the "Role of Muslims in America," when it reserved the room for the conference.
"We're United States citizens and an American business — if it's legal, we're able to host it, as long as it's nothing that disrupts our other guests' privacy and security," Harmon told FOXNews.com.
According to the Khilafah Conference 2009 Web site, the group aims to do neither.
"Hizb-ut-Tahrir is convinced that change must start in the minds of people, and therefore does not accept for people, or societies, to be forced to change by means of violence and terror," it reads.
The site, which includes a promotional YouTube video, says the group "does not work in the West to change the system of government, but works to project a positive image of Islam to Western society."
Click here to see the conference video.
But former member Ishtiaq Hussain said Hizb ut-Tahrir is repackaging itself as a moderate organization as a tactic, while in reality it is "extremist."
"They don't recognize countries like Israel, for example; they don’t believe Israel should exist," Hussain, now a trainer for the Quilliam Foundation, told FOXNews.com. "Some of their leaders have denied the Holocaust, and they believe homosexuals should be thrown off the highest building. ... It's actually a very dangerous group."
Hizb ut-Tahrir itself has also published writings that seem to contradict its tenet of non-violence.
In his book, "How the Khilafah Was Destroyed," Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, the former global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, says anyone who rules by a non-Islamic system should "either retract or be killed ... even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers."
Click here to read the full excerpt.
Hizb ut-Tahrir's official ruling on the permissibility of hijacking planes says, "If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it."
Click here to read the full ruling (pdf).
And one of the organization's more recent leaflets, published in March, calls for the declaration of "a state of war against America."
Click here to read the leaflet.
But, despite these threats and calls to action, Hizb ut-Tahrir remains off the State Department's terror watch list, and it is free to host the Khilafah Conference and any other event like it.
"In other parts of the world where they're really very active, they've drawn tens of thousands of people to some of their events," Segal said.
"It'll be interesting to see to what degree they'll be welcomed here."
These contractors are installing the steel pillars in concrete to stop vehicles from parking...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7372208
...on the pavement outside a Sports Bar downtown. They are now in the process of cleaning up at the end of the day and anxious to go home. How long do you think it will be before they realize where *their* vehicle is parked?
LIFE IN THE 1500'S
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the1500s:
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying. It's raining cats and dogs.
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, dirt poor. The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, bring home the bacon. They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all
sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave.. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a ....dead ringer.
And that's the truth. Now, whoever said history was boring?
Educate someone. Share these facts with a friend.
"The e-mail Bag"
TO ALL MY AMAZING FRIENDS!!!!
I would never trade my amazing friends, my wonderful life, my loving family for less gray hair or a flatter belly. As I've aged, I've become kinder to myself, and less critical of myself. I've become my own friend. I don't chide myself for eating that extra cookie, or for not making my bed, or for buying that silly cement ornament that I didn't need, but looks so avante garde on my patio. I am entitled to a treat, to be messy, to be extravagant.
I have seen too many dear friends leave this world too soon, before they understood the great freedom that comes with aging. Whose business is it if I choose to read or play on the computer until 4 AM and sleep until noon? I will dance with myself to those wonderful tunes of the 60's &70's, and if I, at the same time, wish to weep over a lost love ... I will.
I will walk the beach in a swim suit that is stretched over a bulging body, and will dive into the waves with abandon if I choose to, despite the pitying glances from the jet set. They, too, will get old.
I know I am sometimes forgetful. But there again, some of life is just as well forgotten. And I eventually remember the important things.
Sure, over the years my heart has been broken. How can your heart not break when you lose a loved one, or when a child suffers, or even when somebody's beloved pet gets hit by a car? But broken hearts are what give us strength and understanding and compassion. A heart never broken is pristine and sterile and will never know the joy of being imperfect.
I am so blessed to have lived long enough to have my hair turning gray, and to have my youthful laughs be forever etched into deep grooves on my face. So many have never laughed, and so many have died before their hair could turn silver.
As you get older, it is easier to be positive. You care less about what other people think. I don't question myself anymore. I've even earned the right to be wrong.
So, to answer your question, I like being older. It has set me free. I like the person I have become I am not going to live forever, but while I am still here, I will not waste time lamenting what could have been, or worrying about what will be. And I shall eat dessert every single day (if I feel like it).
MAY OUR FRIENDSHIP NEVER COME APART, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Preserve Democracy In Honduras
Folks, what is going on in Honduras is whereas the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the support of a majority of their people, ousted President Manuel Zelaya in a coup where President Zelaya was extending their Constitution, over and beyond his Presidential powers, to destroy a true Democracy, obtain personal political gain, and extend the Honduran government into Socialism.
Please, don't be surprised if ousted President Manuel Zelaya comes back into Honduras with the support of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and his military forces. What is worse, and totally unacceptable, is that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, may support President Zelaya with President Chavez's invasion of Honduras. One way of President Obama to support the more Socialistic system of former President Zelaya is to do nothing, in any invasion with Chavez's forces, covertly or overtly.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must support the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the majority citizens, whom all want a free Democratic government. In the event of any military action or otherwise by Venezuela President Chavez in an attempt to overthrow the current Honduran government, President Obama must get involved and stop President Chavez at all cost.
Please, don't be surprised if ousted President Manuel Zelaya comes back into Honduras with the support of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and his military forces. What is worse, and totally unacceptable, is that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, may support President Zelaya with President Chavez's invasion of Honduras. One way of President Obama to support the more Socialistic system of former President Zelaya is to do nothing, in any invasion with Chavez's forces, covertly or overtly.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must support the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the majority citizens, whom all want a free Democratic government. In the event of any military action or otherwise by Venezuela President Chavez in an attempt to overthrow the current Honduran government, President Obama must get involved and stop President Chavez at all cost.
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090720
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"My Comments"
For all of you who have been following the "Hate Crime" (S. 1390) legislation which had passed the US House and was up to a vote in the US Senate, the legislation did pass the US Senate on Friday night http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00233 with "S.Amdt. 1511" which allows us all to continue to speak in support of (y)our Holy Bible and its teachings. The Senate Amendment 1511 allows as follows:
Strike page 16, line 24 through page 17, line 7 and insert the following:
SEC. __X. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION.
Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
(1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
(2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
"Daily Motivations"
He who loses wealth loses much; he who loses a friend loses more; but he that loses his courage loses all. -- Miguel de Cervantes
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Yes, glory, majesty, power, and authority belong to him, in the beginning, now, and forevermore. Amen." (Jude 25)
Part of our problem with accepting God's authority and honoring Him is that we have lost our concept of majesty. With little sense of the majesty of God, we have trouble submitting to His sovereignty and worshipping Him. For most Christians, true worship is not something they practice very often or well. In his book, The Attributes of God, A. W. Tozer explains our dilemma:
"The modern Christian has lost a sense of worship along with the concept of majesty [of God]....It is this that makes Christianity, and we have all but lost it. Added numbers, yes, but lost fear. Tons of literature being poured out, of course, but no consciousness of the divine Presence. Better communication, certainly, but nothing to communicate."
Understanding God's sovereignty causes us to focus on Him, not ourselves. Our response is to fall at His feet and give Him everything we are and own.
Think of your life as a house with many rooms. Go through each "room" and surrender both the room and the contents to Him. If you have a closet full of fears, let Him control that part of your life. Invite Him into the room where you hide your insecurities and hurts. Let Him take down that monument of pride to your own abilities and talents that you have displayed in your living room. Ask Him to control your checkbook and bank account.
Everything you "lose" by serving Him He will replace with something so much better. He controls the universe; He will, without doubt, enrich your life with joy, peace, happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction, and rewards far beyond your wildest imagination!
"The Patriot Post"
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." -- Thomas Jefferson
"No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows; in no way can the success of evil be made surer or quicker." -- President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office." -- American journalist H. L. Mencken (1880-1856)
VILLAGE IDIOTS
A resounding "No!": "If Obama can push health care -- single-pay or whatever he's trying to do -- through, will that alleviate the problem, do you think?â? -- The View's Joy Behar cheerleading for Obama while not sure of the game plan
Who's he kidding: "Democratic presidents nominate very centrist justices to the Supreme Court. The Republican presidents over the past 10-15 years have nominated very extremely conservative justices and that's why the court has eschewed to the right. ... And the role of the Democratic judges -- justices -- has been to play the middle... And that is, I think, at a larger ideological point, a discussion we should have, because Democratic presidents have been hesitant to put really liberal justices on the court." -- former NY governor Eliot Spitzer
Too dumb for Demo-gogues: "Too bad, if a governor had to go missing it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin." -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Cambodia), who may have a horse's face but acts like another part of a horse's anatomy, on SC Gov. Mark Sanford's strange disappearance last week
Getting stoned: "Nixon always said Reagan was a dumb son of a b**** and, you know, I think that he was. And I think, I really think George W is dumber. ... I do think that by doing the 'W' movie I kind of put all my efforts behind dumbness." -- filmmaker Oliver Stone
"The Web"
Obama vs. Obama on the Stimulus
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/new_gop_ad_obama_vs_obama_on_t.html
A Hero's Salute - Staff Sgt. John Beale - From Rep. Steve Davis (R-GA-109)
Folks, this one will bring tears to your eyes for joy, to anyone who loves God and America. It is the communities' salute to SFC. John Beale of McDonough, Georgia (originally of Riverdale, GA) as he is honored by thousands and thousands of individuals who realize "Freedom Is Not Free". Thank you Rep. Steve Davis for providing this video for us all. You may read a resume summary on SFC John Beale: http://freedomremembered.com/index.php/staff-sgt-john-c-beale/ - oyh
This simply may be the best definition of America I have ever seen!!!! Let's argue about everything, but never lose this America !!!!
Killed in action the week before, the body of Sergeant First Class John C. Beale was returned to Falcon Field in Peachtree City, Georgia, just south of Atlanta, on June 11, 2009. The Henry County Police Department escorted the procession to the funeral home in McDonough, Georgia. A simple notice in local papers indicated the road route to be taken and the approximate time.
Nowadays one can be led to believe that America no longer respects honor and no longer honors sacrifice outside the military. Be it known that there are many places in this land where people still recognize the courage and impact of total self-sacrifice. Georgia remains one of those graceful places.
The link below is a short travelogue of that day's remarkable and painful journey. But only watch this if you wish to have some of your faith in people restored. Please share widely. Simply click the link below:
http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/rss/flash/2257594&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf&feedurl=http://repdavis.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http://blip.tv/%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Bible banishment by court overturned
Thank you "Liberty Counsel" for your successful efforts in this most important, right, Christian, and legal matter. - oyh
Appeals judges approve policy of equal treatment for all materials
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104168
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry that singled out the Bible as an "instrument of religion" and banned its distribution in a school has been overturned by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case, which has been developing for several years, concerned the activities of the South Iron School District in Missouri, which for years had allowed members of the Gideons to hand out Bibles to fifth-graders.
When the practice was challenged, the board adopted a new neutral policy requiring anyone wishing to hand out materials to submit them to the school for approval. It specifically banished materials in several categories such as commercial advertisements and documents that promote illegal actions. It also provided for an appeal process.
"Under this policy, an outside group may offer Bibles to students who wish to take them in the same manner as other nonreligious groups are permitted to distribute secular literature," explained Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mathew Staver, who argued the case before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
However, opponents of the school's policy continued their protest, and Perry issued a permanent injunction banning the distribution of Bibles in classrooms and also condemned the school's new policy.
Her decision said the neutral treatment policy toward handouts was unacceptable, because it would allow actual distribution of Bibles.
Her ruling, according to Liberty Counsel, "presented a novel (and unconstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant."
The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature, the law firm said.
Staver said the Constitution simply doesn't allow the Bible to be singled out, like contraband, for special penalties.
"How ironic that in America, until recent times, the Bible formed the basis of education, and now its mere presence is radioactive in the opinion of some judges," he said when he argued the appeal. "The founders never envisioned such open hostility toward the Christian religion as we see today in some venues. To single out the Bible alone for discriminatory treatment harkens back to the Dark Ages. America deserves better. Our Constitution should be respected, not disregarded."
But the 8th Circuit decision, which continued a ban on handing out Bibles to students in classrooms, said they could be distributed on the same basis as other handouts.
"Opening the school for expressive conduct to community and student groups serves the secular purpose of providing a forum for an exchange of ideas and social intercourse," said the opinion.
"We know of no case holding that the creation of a limited public forum was not a secular purpose satisfying [the law]," the judges continued.
The case originated in 2006 when the American Civil Liberties Union sued to stop the Gideons from handing out Bibles. Under the newest court decision, those now can be handed out – just like other materials – from several specific locations in the school.
"We are pleased that the new equal access policy can finally go into effect," said Staver. "The Founders never envisioned open hostility toward religious viewpoints."
The appeals court decision said the lower court decision would have precluded the school "from ever creating a limited public forum in which religious materials may be distributed in a constitutional neutral manner."
Instead, the ruling found, "school officials must remain free to experiment in good faith with new policies to accommodate the tensions between educational objectives … private rights under the Free Exercise Clause, and … the Establishment Clause."
Staver told WND that under the orders from the district court decision, "The Quran is OK, and other kinds of religious texts; just not the Bible. The Bible alone is impermissible in the public school."
Among the groups that have distributed material at the school are the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare and Union Pacific Railroad, officials said.
"The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but the Constitution requires equal treatment," Staver said. "The First Amendment protects private religious viewpoints. Hecklers may heckle but they may not veto private religious speech. ... Religious viewpoints have constitutional protection."
The appeals court opinion said, "The district court wholly ignored the proper initial inquiry, whether the text of the new policy evidences an unconstitutional purpose."
The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, have as their "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."
Gideons have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages.
The organization focuses on hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, colleges, universities, the military, law enforcement, prisons and jails.
"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations," the group said. "Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than one million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days."
The Gideons International is the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the U.S.
Federal court throws out challenge to Calif. marriage amendment
Thank you "Allianc Defense Fund" for your successful efforts in this most important, right, Christian, and legal matter. - oyh
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
July 17, 2009 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020 or www.adfmedia.org/home/contact
Federal court throws out challenge to Calif. marriage amendment
ADF attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal court Thursday threw out a legal challenge filed against California’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent and campaign committee of Proposition 8, which was allowed to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit in May.
Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available at the following link:
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/2658
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.
www.adfmedia.org | www.domawatch.org
BORN IN THE USA?
Lib talker, Lou Dobbs now asking eligibility questions
I truly believe there is hard evidence that President Obama has not, will not, and can not, produce an actual legal Birth Certificate as a "Natural Born Citizen" from Honolulu, Hawaii. With this article, the evidence may begin to pile up on President Obama. - oyh
Radio, television, newspapers taking note of long-running dispute
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104219
Radio talk shows, television programming, newspapers - even a liberal talk show host in New York and talk format icon Lou Dobbs - have begun taking note of the story long reported by WorldNetDaily over the doubts about and challenges to President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval office.
Lynn Samuels, longtime New York radio talker, even accused Obama of lying about his birth certificate.
WND has been reporting – many times in solo fashion – on the issues that have been raised by multiple lawsuits contending that Obama does not qualify under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen.
But now word is spreading, prompted by the case brought this week by an Army major scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan.
In that case, which was dismissed today by a judge in Georgia, a reserve officer explained he had a right to question his deployment orders and know that the commander-in-chief is legitimate, or he would be exposing himself and any soldiers under him to extreme danger in overseas combat situations.
Maj. Stefan Cook's case was dismissed by the judge who noted the Pentagon had revoked the officer's deployment orders, apparently resolving the dispute. The officer's civilian employer also reported being pressured by the government to fire the officer.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.
The story was reported on Sean Hannity's program on Fox News.
Hannity said the challenge to the deployment orders came after Obama ordered a surge in troops to Afghanistan.
A report on the same challenge also appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
And Orly Taitz, the attorney for Maj. Stefan Cook, was on the Lou Dobbs radio program, along with former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who was a presidential candidate on the ballot in 2008.
Dobbs said he and his staff have "been working hard to figure out what's going on."
He said he's found the Federal Election Commission does "nothing to validate … a candidate." Nor do the states, he said.
Keyes said it rests upon judges and members of Congress, who have sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, to do their duty and investigate questions or discrepancies.
Dobbs suggested that many Americans believe simply being born to a mother who is a U.S. citizen automatically makes the newborn a citizen, but both Taitz and Keyes explained that under the immigration law in effect in the 1960s when Obama was born, an American woman married to a foreign national man had to have lived in the U.S. 10 years, at least five of which were after the age of 14, to pass along U.S. citizenship.
Taitz pointed out Obama's mother was too young to do that.
In a video posted on YouTube by Radio Equalizer, liberal radio talker Lynn Samuels had her say:
"We don't even know where he was born," she says. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."
Challenged by a caller that Obama could not have hidden birth certificate issues from the U.S., she responded: "Yes you can. His birth certificate is locked and the story came out on WorldNetDaily the other day – they're really on this – he said originally he was born in like Queen Anne hospital in Hawaii. Then he sends a letter of congratulations on the anniversary of some other hospital in Hawaii, saying of course this is a great hospital, I was born here. He doesn't even know where the hell he was born because he's lying."
Taitz told WND that after the Cook case hearing in Georgia today, there were multiple network reporters on the scene
"There is a lot of publicity," she said. "The word spreads."
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten
records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Chelsea Schilling, Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina”: Perjury?
http://www.americanvision.org/article/sotomayors-wise-latina-perjury/
by Joel McDurmon
“Sotomayor” is Spanish for “great thicket.” In the hearings for her Supreme Court nomination this week, Sonia Sotomayor is hoping we won’t see the forest for the thicket. She has used every weasel word, evasion, and even plain language in an attempt to divert attention from the one huge fact we all know: she’s a liberal, feminist, radical judge just waiting to grab power before she unleashes her radicalism. This fact has most clearly shown through in her comment that a “wise Latina woman” can reach a better decision than a white male, and this is why this particular comment of hers has received the most public scrutiny (despite her pretended dismay over the fact). Many have already tired of this issue, but I hope the following paragraphs will persuade you why we should not yet let this go.
In defense of herself she has argued that her critics have pulled the statement from its context. In context she says she only meant to “inspire” young Latino lawyers “to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”[1] Then she spoke very clearly and sternly against her critics’ perception. This statement is very important. She said,
I want to state up front, unequivocally, and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has any advantage in sound judging. . . . The words I used, I used agreeing with the sentiment that justice Sandra Day-O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be. . . that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.[2]
In saying this I believe she may have perjured herself, because this was expressly the opposite of what she says in her now well publicized speech. In that speech she clearly expresses disagreement with Day - O’Connor’s view that, as she puts it, “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”[3] She expresses her disagreement with these words:
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.[4]
There is no escaping the fact, therefore, that she delivered her infamous “wise Latina” comment as a rejection of Day - O’Connor’s view of equality. No honest interpreter could accept this as anything other than a confirmation of a form of racial and gender superiority. Furthermore, she offered this comment in support of her earlier argument in favor of the fact that racial and gender difference must inevitably affect judicial decisions. She puts it this way:
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. . .. . [E]nough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.[5]
Again, she says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”[6] She embraces this fact, and looks forward to her own “difference making”:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[7]
She encourages other young minority lawyers to embrace this attitude as well, and let it infect their legal decisions:
For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? . .. . For all of us, how do [we] change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?[8]
And she directs “men lawyers” (presumably “white” males) to consider how they can improve themselves, presumably by approximating the role of previous liberals who have made decisions favoring minorities: “For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”[9] It remains clear to me that she intended to mean not that a minority could judge equally as well as anyone else, but as she plainly said, an ethnic or gender minority could “more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” If our legislators cannot understand that this clearly expresses racism and sexism, then America is truly lost in a great thicket of political incompetence and prejudice.
I can’t believe this woman would get off the hook by merely saying she believes in equality and that she was agreeing with Day-O’Connor. Both points made in her hearings flatly contradict what she said and wrote in her speech. The Senate Judiciary Committee should not accept this evasive testimony, and ought to look into it as a possible case of perjury. Worse yet, to confirm her nomination would be the least wise thing they could do at this point.
Let us pray... Prayer chain for our Military... Don't break it!
http://www.liveinhispresence.com/military_prayer.htm
Prayer for our soldiers. Don't break it!
Prayer:
"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen." Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world.
Honduras crisis talks start, shadowed by ultimatum
Important: Folks, what is going on in Honduras is whereas the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the support of a majority of their people, ousted President Manuel Zelaya in a coup where President Zelaya was extending their Constitution, over and beyond his Presidential powers, to destroy a true Democracy, obtain personal political gain, and extend the Honduran government into Socialism.
Please, don't be surprised if ousted President Manuel Zelaya comes back into Honduras with the support of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and his military forces. What is worse, and totally unacceptable, is that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, may support President Zelaya with President Chavez's invasion of Honduras. One way of President Obama to support the more Socialistic system of former President Zelaya is to do nothing, in any invasion with Chavez's forces, covertly or overtly.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must support the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the majority citizens, whom all want a free Democratic government. In the event of any military action or otherwise by Venezuela President Chavez in an attempt to overthrow the current Honduran government, President Obama must get involved and stop President Chavez at all cost. - oyh
MARIANELA JIMENEZ
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8560/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=s12ksHNJ
Honduras' ousted President Manuel Zelaya gestures during a news conference in Managua, Friday, July 17, 2009. Allies of ousted President Zelaya say U.S.-backed talks in Costa Rica this weekend may be the last chance to avert a clash, perhaps even civil war.(AP Photo/Esteban Felix)
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (AP) - A crucial round of talks to resolve the leadership crisis in Honduras began Saturday following an ultimatum from ousted President Manuel Zelaya that appeared to leave little room for compromise.
Delegates of both sides arrived at the home of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who is mediating the U.S.-backed negotiations.
"The international community has given their unanimous support to this mediation hoping that the Honduran conflict can be solved through diplomatic means and the paths of peace," Arias said.
But Zelaya, who was forced into exile in a June 28 military coup, gave negotiators just until midnight to restore him to office, threatening to return to Honduras and attempt to retake power on his own if no agreement is reached. He indicated he would reject any power-sharing agreement, a proposal to be discussed at the talks.
"If at that time, there is no resolution to that end, I will consider the negotiations in Costa Rica a failure," Zelaya said at a news conference Friday night at the Honduran embassy in Nicaragua. "I am going back to Honduras, but I am not going to give you the date, hour or place, or say if I'm going to enter through land, air or sea."
He did not say what steps he would take once on Honduran soil. But earlier this week, he said Hondurans have a constitutional right to rebel against an illegitimate government.
The interim government has vowed to arrest Zelaya if he returns. The military thwarted his attempt to fly home July 5 by using vehicles to block the runway, preventing his plane from landing in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa.
Zelaya's supporters have staged near daily protests demanding his return, and about 3,000 blocked traffic on one of the main boulevards in Tegucigalpa Saturday chanting slogans in favor of the ousted leader.
"Nothing will come out of the negotiations and people know that," said Cesar Silva, who helped organize the protest, adding that he expected Zelaya to return to Honduras after midnight Saturday.
Arias had appeared optimistic about a resolution on Friday, saying both camps had "softened, and I think we are going to find more flexibility." In the first round of talks the two sides agreed only to meet again.
Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for helping to end Central America's wars, has presented possible compromises to both camps, including a power-sharing deal in which Zelaya could return to serve out the remaining months of his term as president, but with limited power.
Zelaya suggested he would reject such a plan. "I cannot accept a reward for the coup leaders because that would be an aberration," he said.
Arias also said an amnesty deal for Zelaya was possible.
Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead - a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal but necessary.
Many Hondurans viewed the proposed referendum as an attempt by Zelaya to push for a socialist-leaning government similar to the one his ally Hugo Chavez has established in Venezuela.
In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called Friday for all nations to support the talks and he urged them to avoid "any action that would potentially increase the risk of violence either in Honduras or in surrounding countries."
That appeared to be an allusion to remarks by Chavez, who has warned of possible civil war in Honduras.
Interim President Roberto Micheletti has said Zelaya might try to sneak in by crossing Nicaragua's jungle-cloaked border with Honduras.
Micheletti told Colombia's RCN Radio that his government was open to dialogue but argued that Zelaya committed crimes against "the economy, the citizenry and against the constitution" and could not be allowed to return to power.
Micheletti, the congressional president who was sworn in to replace Zelaya after the coup, has suggested moving up the presidential election scheduled for November as a way out of the crisis.
Supreme Court President Jorge Rivera, who under the constitution would be next in line for the presidency if Micheletti resigned, said an amnesty for Zelaya could be considered as part of the negotiations. But if Zelaya enters the country without amnesty, he should be immediately arrested, Rivera said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Zelaya's deadline for the coup leaders to back down falls at the start of the 30th anniversary of Nicaragua's July 19, 1979, Sandinista revolution that toppled dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Associated Press writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this story from Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Let's say I break into your house...
http://www.seadogbytes.com/BreakIn/BreakIn.html
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress may be finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hardworking
and honest, (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house.
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.
You are Required to Educate my kids.
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family.
(My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hardworking and honest, except for that breaking in part.)
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hardworking and honest person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college.(TEEHEE)
And what a deal it is for me!!!
...I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold,
uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to
Make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them...
Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! ...Only in America.
If you agree, pass it on...
(...in English ).
If not, just blow it off.........
...Along with your future Social Security benefits, your country's sovereignty,
your children's future, and a lot of other
'pesky little things'.
http://www.seadogbytes.com
"The e-mail Bag"
The challenge of retirement is how to spend time without spending money. ~Author Unknown
ADULT:
A person who has stopped growing at both ends and is now growing in the middle.
BEAUTY PARLOR:
A place where women curl up and dye.
CANNIBAL:
Someone who is fed up with people.
CHICKENS:
The only animals you eat before they are born and after they are dead.
COMMITTEE:
A body that keeps minutes and wastes hours.
DUST:
Mud with the juice squeezed out.
EGOTIST:
Someone who is usually me-deep in conversation.
HANDKERCHIEF:
Cold Storage.
INFLATION:
Cutting money in half without damaging the paper.
MOSQUITO:
An insect that makes you like flies better.
RAISIN:
Grape with a sunburn.
SECRET:
Something you tell to one person at a time.
SKELETON:
A bunch of bones with the person scraped off.
TOOTHACHE:
The pain that drives you to extraction.
TOMORROW:
One of the greatest labor saving devices of today.
YAWN:
An honest opinion openly expressed.
WRINKLES:
Something other people have, similar to my character lines.
"My Comments"
For all of you who have been following the "Hate Crime" (S. 1390) legislation which had passed the US House and was up to a vote in the US Senate, the legislation did pass the US Senate on Friday night http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00233 with "S.Amdt. 1511" which allows us all to continue to speak in support of (y)our Holy Bible and its teachings. The Senate Amendment 1511 allows as follows:
Strike page 16, line 24 through page 17, line 7 and insert the following:
SEC. __X. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION.
Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
(1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
(2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
"Daily Motivations"
He who loses wealth loses much; he who loses a friend loses more; but he that loses his courage loses all. -- Miguel de Cervantes
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Yes, glory, majesty, power, and authority belong to him, in the beginning, now, and forevermore. Amen." (Jude 25)
Part of our problem with accepting God's authority and honoring Him is that we have lost our concept of majesty. With little sense of the majesty of God, we have trouble submitting to His sovereignty and worshipping Him. For most Christians, true worship is not something they practice very often or well. In his book, The Attributes of God, A. W. Tozer explains our dilemma:
"The modern Christian has lost a sense of worship along with the concept of majesty [of God]....It is this that makes Christianity, and we have all but lost it. Added numbers, yes, but lost fear. Tons of literature being poured out, of course, but no consciousness of the divine Presence. Better communication, certainly, but nothing to communicate."
Understanding God's sovereignty causes us to focus on Him, not ourselves. Our response is to fall at His feet and give Him everything we are and own.
Think of your life as a house with many rooms. Go through each "room" and surrender both the room and the contents to Him. If you have a closet full of fears, let Him control that part of your life. Invite Him into the room where you hide your insecurities and hurts. Let Him take down that monument of pride to your own abilities and talents that you have displayed in your living room. Ask Him to control your checkbook and bank account.
Everything you "lose" by serving Him He will replace with something so much better. He controls the universe; He will, without doubt, enrich your life with joy, peace, happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction, and rewards far beyond your wildest imagination!
"The Patriot Post"
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." -- Thomas Jefferson
"No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows; in no way can the success of evil be made surer or quicker." -- President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office." -- American journalist H. L. Mencken (1880-1856)
VILLAGE IDIOTS
A resounding "No!": "If Obama can push health care -- single-pay or whatever he's trying to do -- through, will that alleviate the problem, do you think?â? -- The View's Joy Behar cheerleading for Obama while not sure of the game plan
Who's he kidding: "Democratic presidents nominate very centrist justices to the Supreme Court. The Republican presidents over the past 10-15 years have nominated very extremely conservative justices and that's why the court has eschewed to the right. ... And the role of the Democratic judges -- justices -- has been to play the middle... And that is, I think, at a larger ideological point, a discussion we should have, because Democratic presidents have been hesitant to put really liberal justices on the court." -- former NY governor Eliot Spitzer
Too dumb for Demo-gogues: "Too bad, if a governor had to go missing it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin." -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Cambodia), who may have a horse's face but acts like another part of a horse's anatomy, on SC Gov. Mark Sanford's strange disappearance last week
Getting stoned: "Nixon always said Reagan was a dumb son of a b**** and, you know, I think that he was. And I think, I really think George W is dumber. ... I do think that by doing the 'W' movie I kind of put all my efforts behind dumbness." -- filmmaker Oliver Stone
"The Web"
Obama vs. Obama on the Stimulus
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/new_gop_ad_obama_vs_obama_on_t.html
A Hero's Salute - Staff Sgt. John Beale - From Rep. Steve Davis (R-GA-109)
Folks, this one will bring tears to your eyes for joy, to anyone who loves God and America. It is the communities' salute to SFC. John Beale of McDonough, Georgia (originally of Riverdale, GA) as he is honored by thousands and thousands of individuals who realize "Freedom Is Not Free". Thank you Rep. Steve Davis for providing this video for us all. You may read a resume summary on SFC John Beale: http://freedomremembered.com/index.php/staff-sgt-john-c-beale/ - oyh
This simply may be the best definition of America I have ever seen!!!! Let's argue about everything, but never lose this America !!!!
Killed in action the week before, the body of Sergeant First Class John C. Beale was returned to Falcon Field in Peachtree City, Georgia, just south of Atlanta, on June 11, 2009. The Henry County Police Department escorted the procession to the funeral home in McDonough, Georgia. A simple notice in local papers indicated the road route to be taken and the approximate time.
Nowadays one can be led to believe that America no longer respects honor and no longer honors sacrifice outside the military. Be it known that there are many places in this land where people still recognize the courage and impact of total self-sacrifice. Georgia remains one of those graceful places.
The link below is a short travelogue of that day's remarkable and painful journey. But only watch this if you wish to have some of your faith in people restored. Please share widely. Simply click the link below:
http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/rss/flash/2257594&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf&feedurl=http://repdavis.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http://blip.tv/%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Bible banishment by court overturned
Thank you "Liberty Counsel" for your successful efforts in this most important, right, Christian, and legal matter. - oyh
Appeals judges approve policy of equal treatment for all materials
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104168
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry that singled out the Bible as an "instrument of religion" and banned its distribution in a school has been overturned by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case, which has been developing for several years, concerned the activities of the South Iron School District in Missouri, which for years had allowed members of the Gideons to hand out Bibles to fifth-graders.
When the practice was challenged, the board adopted a new neutral policy requiring anyone wishing to hand out materials to submit them to the school for approval. It specifically banished materials in several categories such as commercial advertisements and documents that promote illegal actions. It also provided for an appeal process.
"Under this policy, an outside group may offer Bibles to students who wish to take them in the same manner as other nonreligious groups are permitted to distribute secular literature," explained Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mathew Staver, who argued the case before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
However, opponents of the school's policy continued their protest, and Perry issued a permanent injunction banning the distribution of Bibles in classrooms and also condemned the school's new policy.
Her decision said the neutral treatment policy toward handouts was unacceptable, because it would allow actual distribution of Bibles.
Her ruling, according to Liberty Counsel, "presented a novel (and unconstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant."
The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature, the law firm said.
Staver said the Constitution simply doesn't allow the Bible to be singled out, like contraband, for special penalties.
"How ironic that in America, until recent times, the Bible formed the basis of education, and now its mere presence is radioactive in the opinion of some judges," he said when he argued the appeal. "The founders never envisioned such open hostility toward the Christian religion as we see today in some venues. To single out the Bible alone for discriminatory treatment harkens back to the Dark Ages. America deserves better. Our Constitution should be respected, not disregarded."
But the 8th Circuit decision, which continued a ban on handing out Bibles to students in classrooms, said they could be distributed on the same basis as other handouts.
"Opening the school for expressive conduct to community and student groups serves the secular purpose of providing a forum for an exchange of ideas and social intercourse," said the opinion.
"We know of no case holding that the creation of a limited public forum was not a secular purpose satisfying [the law]," the judges continued.
The case originated in 2006 when the American Civil Liberties Union sued to stop the Gideons from handing out Bibles. Under the newest court decision, those now can be handed out – just like other materials – from several specific locations in the school.
"We are pleased that the new equal access policy can finally go into effect," said Staver. "The Founders never envisioned open hostility toward religious viewpoints."
The appeals court decision said the lower court decision would have precluded the school "from ever creating a limited public forum in which religious materials may be distributed in a constitutional neutral manner."
Instead, the ruling found, "school officials must remain free to experiment in good faith with new policies to accommodate the tensions between educational objectives … private rights under the Free Exercise Clause, and … the Establishment Clause."
Staver told WND that under the orders from the district court decision, "The Quran is OK, and other kinds of religious texts; just not the Bible. The Bible alone is impermissible in the public school."
Among the groups that have distributed material at the school are the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare and Union Pacific Railroad, officials said.
"The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but the Constitution requires equal treatment," Staver said. "The First Amendment protects private religious viewpoints. Hecklers may heckle but they may not veto private religious speech. ... Religious viewpoints have constitutional protection."
The appeals court opinion said, "The district court wholly ignored the proper initial inquiry, whether the text of the new policy evidences an unconstitutional purpose."
The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, have as their "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."
Gideons have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages.
The organization focuses on hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, colleges, universities, the military, law enforcement, prisons and jails.
"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations," the group said. "Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than one million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days."
The Gideons International is the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the U.S.
Federal court throws out challenge to Calif. marriage amendment
Thank you "Allianc Defense Fund" for your successful efforts in this most important, right, Christian, and legal matter. - oyh
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
July 17, 2009 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020 or www.adfmedia.org/home/contact
Federal court throws out challenge to Calif. marriage amendment
ADF attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal court Thursday threw out a legal challenge filed against California’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent and campaign committee of Proposition 8, which was allowed to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit in May.
Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available at the following link:
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/2658
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.
www.adfmedia.org | www.domawatch.org
BORN IN THE USA?
Lib talker, Lou Dobbs now asking eligibility questions
I truly believe there is hard evidence that President Obama has not, will not, and can not, produce an actual legal Birth Certificate as a "Natural Born Citizen" from Honolulu, Hawaii. With this article, the evidence may begin to pile up on President Obama. - oyh
Radio, television, newspapers taking note of long-running dispute
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104219
Radio talk shows, television programming, newspapers - even a liberal talk show host in New York and talk format icon Lou Dobbs - have begun taking note of the story long reported by WorldNetDaily over the doubts about and challenges to President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval office.
Lynn Samuels, longtime New York radio talker, even accused Obama of lying about his birth certificate.
WND has been reporting – many times in solo fashion – on the issues that have been raised by multiple lawsuits contending that Obama does not qualify under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen.
But now word is spreading, prompted by the case brought this week by an Army major scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan.
In that case, which was dismissed today by a judge in Georgia, a reserve officer explained he had a right to question his deployment orders and know that the commander-in-chief is legitimate, or he would be exposing himself and any soldiers under him to extreme danger in overseas combat situations.
Maj. Stefan Cook's case was dismissed by the judge who noted the Pentagon had revoked the officer's deployment orders, apparently resolving the dispute. The officer's civilian employer also reported being pressured by the government to fire the officer.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.
The story was reported on Sean Hannity's program on Fox News.
Hannity said the challenge to the deployment orders came after Obama ordered a surge in troops to Afghanistan.
A report on the same challenge also appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
And Orly Taitz, the attorney for Maj. Stefan Cook, was on the Lou Dobbs radio program, along with former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who was a presidential candidate on the ballot in 2008.
Dobbs said he and his staff have "been working hard to figure out what's going on."
He said he's found the Federal Election Commission does "nothing to validate … a candidate." Nor do the states, he said.
Keyes said it rests upon judges and members of Congress, who have sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, to do their duty and investigate questions or discrepancies.
Dobbs suggested that many Americans believe simply being born to a mother who is a U.S. citizen automatically makes the newborn a citizen, but both Taitz and Keyes explained that under the immigration law in effect in the 1960s when Obama was born, an American woman married to a foreign national man had to have lived in the U.S. 10 years, at least five of which were after the age of 14, to pass along U.S. citizenship.
Taitz pointed out Obama's mother was too young to do that.
In a video posted on YouTube by Radio Equalizer, liberal radio talker Lynn Samuels had her say:
"We don't even know where he was born," she says. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."
Challenged by a caller that Obama could not have hidden birth certificate issues from the U.S., she responded: "Yes you can. His birth certificate is locked and the story came out on WorldNetDaily the other day – they're really on this – he said originally he was born in like Queen Anne hospital in Hawaii. Then he sends a letter of congratulations on the anniversary of some other hospital in Hawaii, saying of course this is a great hospital, I was born here. He doesn't even know where the hell he was born because he's lying."
Taitz told WND that after the Cook case hearing in Georgia today, there were multiple network reporters on the scene
"There is a lot of publicity," she said. "The word spreads."
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten
records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Chelsea Schilling, Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina”: Perjury?
http://www.americanvision.org/article/sotomayors-wise-latina-perjury/
by Joel McDurmon
“Sotomayor” is Spanish for “great thicket.” In the hearings for her Supreme Court nomination this week, Sonia Sotomayor is hoping we won’t see the forest for the thicket. She has used every weasel word, evasion, and even plain language in an attempt to divert attention from the one huge fact we all know: she’s a liberal, feminist, radical judge just waiting to grab power before she unleashes her radicalism. This fact has most clearly shown through in her comment that a “wise Latina woman” can reach a better decision than a white male, and this is why this particular comment of hers has received the most public scrutiny (despite her pretended dismay over the fact). Many have already tired of this issue, but I hope the following paragraphs will persuade you why we should not yet let this go.
In defense of herself she has argued that her critics have pulled the statement from its context. In context she says she only meant to “inspire” young Latino lawyers “to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”[1] Then she spoke very clearly and sternly against her critics’ perception. This statement is very important. She said,
I want to state up front, unequivocally, and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has any advantage in sound judging. . . . The words I used, I used agreeing with the sentiment that justice Sandra Day-O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be. . . that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.[2]
In saying this I believe she may have perjured herself, because this was expressly the opposite of what she says in her now well publicized speech. In that speech she clearly expresses disagreement with Day - O’Connor’s view that, as she puts it, “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”[3] She expresses her disagreement with these words:
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.[4]
There is no escaping the fact, therefore, that she delivered her infamous “wise Latina” comment as a rejection of Day - O’Connor’s view of equality. No honest interpreter could accept this as anything other than a confirmation of a form of racial and gender superiority. Furthermore, she offered this comment in support of her earlier argument in favor of the fact that racial and gender difference must inevitably affect judicial decisions. She puts it this way:
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. . .. . [E]nough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.[5]
Again, she says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”[6] She embraces this fact, and looks forward to her own “difference making”:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[7]
She encourages other young minority lawyers to embrace this attitude as well, and let it infect their legal decisions:
For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? . .. . For all of us, how do [we] change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?[8]
And she directs “men lawyers” (presumably “white” males) to consider how they can improve themselves, presumably by approximating the role of previous liberals who have made decisions favoring minorities: “For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”[9] It remains clear to me that she intended to mean not that a minority could judge equally as well as anyone else, but as she plainly said, an ethnic or gender minority could “more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” If our legislators cannot understand that this clearly expresses racism and sexism, then America is truly lost in a great thicket of political incompetence and prejudice.
I can’t believe this woman would get off the hook by merely saying she believes in equality and that she was agreeing with Day-O’Connor. Both points made in her hearings flatly contradict what she said and wrote in her speech. The Senate Judiciary Committee should not accept this evasive testimony, and ought to look into it as a possible case of perjury. Worse yet, to confirm her nomination would be the least wise thing they could do at this point.
Let us pray... Prayer chain for our Military... Don't break it!
http://www.liveinhispresence.com/military_prayer.htm
Prayer for our soldiers. Don't break it!
Prayer:
"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen." Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world.
Honduras crisis talks start, shadowed by ultimatum
Important: Folks, what is going on in Honduras is whereas the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the support of a majority of their people, ousted President Manuel Zelaya in a coup where President Zelaya was extending their Constitution, over and beyond his Presidential powers, to destroy a true Democracy, obtain personal political gain, and extend the Honduran government into Socialism.
Please, don't be surprised if ousted President Manuel Zelaya comes back into Honduras with the support of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and his military forces. What is worse, and totally unacceptable, is that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, may support President Zelaya with President Chavez's invasion of Honduras. One way of President Obama to support the more Socialistic system of former President Zelaya is to do nothing, in any invasion with Chavez's forces, covertly or overtly.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must support the Honduras Supreme Court, their Congress, and the majority citizens, whom all want a free Democratic government. In the event of any military action or otherwise by Venezuela President Chavez in an attempt to overthrow the current Honduran government, President Obama must get involved and stop President Chavez at all cost. - oyh
MARIANELA JIMENEZ
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8560/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=s12ksHNJ
Honduras' ousted President Manuel Zelaya gestures during a news conference in Managua, Friday, July 17, 2009. Allies of ousted President Zelaya say U.S.-backed talks in Costa Rica this weekend may be the last chance to avert a clash, perhaps even civil war.(AP Photo/Esteban Felix)
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (AP) - A crucial round of talks to resolve the leadership crisis in Honduras began Saturday following an ultimatum from ousted President Manuel Zelaya that appeared to leave little room for compromise.
Delegates of both sides arrived at the home of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who is mediating the U.S.-backed negotiations.
"The international community has given their unanimous support to this mediation hoping that the Honduran conflict can be solved through diplomatic means and the paths of peace," Arias said.
But Zelaya, who was forced into exile in a June 28 military coup, gave negotiators just until midnight to restore him to office, threatening to return to Honduras and attempt to retake power on his own if no agreement is reached. He indicated he would reject any power-sharing agreement, a proposal to be discussed at the talks.
"If at that time, there is no resolution to that end, I will consider the negotiations in Costa Rica a failure," Zelaya said at a news conference Friday night at the Honduran embassy in Nicaragua. "I am going back to Honduras, but I am not going to give you the date, hour or place, or say if I'm going to enter through land, air or sea."
He did not say what steps he would take once on Honduran soil. But earlier this week, he said Hondurans have a constitutional right to rebel against an illegitimate government.
The interim government has vowed to arrest Zelaya if he returns. The military thwarted his attempt to fly home July 5 by using vehicles to block the runway, preventing his plane from landing in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa.
Zelaya's supporters have staged near daily protests demanding his return, and about 3,000 blocked traffic on one of the main boulevards in Tegucigalpa Saturday chanting slogans in favor of the ousted leader.
"Nothing will come out of the negotiations and people know that," said Cesar Silva, who helped organize the protest, adding that he expected Zelaya to return to Honduras after midnight Saturday.
Arias had appeared optimistic about a resolution on Friday, saying both camps had "softened, and I think we are going to find more flexibility." In the first round of talks the two sides agreed only to meet again.
Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for helping to end Central America's wars, has presented possible compromises to both camps, including a power-sharing deal in which Zelaya could return to serve out the remaining months of his term as president, but with limited power.
Zelaya suggested he would reject such a plan. "I cannot accept a reward for the coup leaders because that would be an aberration," he said.
Arias also said an amnesty deal for Zelaya was possible.
Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead - a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal but necessary.
Many Hondurans viewed the proposed referendum as an attempt by Zelaya to push for a socialist-leaning government similar to the one his ally Hugo Chavez has established in Venezuela.
In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called Friday for all nations to support the talks and he urged them to avoid "any action that would potentially increase the risk of violence either in Honduras or in surrounding countries."
That appeared to be an allusion to remarks by Chavez, who has warned of possible civil war in Honduras.
Interim President Roberto Micheletti has said Zelaya might try to sneak in by crossing Nicaragua's jungle-cloaked border with Honduras.
Micheletti told Colombia's RCN Radio that his government was open to dialogue but argued that Zelaya committed crimes against "the economy, the citizenry and against the constitution" and could not be allowed to return to power.
Micheletti, the congressional president who was sworn in to replace Zelaya after the coup, has suggested moving up the presidential election scheduled for November as a way out of the crisis.
Supreme Court President Jorge Rivera, who under the constitution would be next in line for the presidency if Micheletti resigned, said an amnesty for Zelaya could be considered as part of the negotiations. But if Zelaya enters the country without amnesty, he should be immediately arrested, Rivera said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Zelaya's deadline for the coup leaders to back down falls at the start of the 30th anniversary of Nicaragua's July 19, 1979, Sandinista revolution that toppled dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Associated Press writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this story from Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Let's say I break into your house...
http://www.seadogbytes.com/BreakIn/BreakIn.html
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress may be finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hardworking
and honest, (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house.
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.
You are Required to Educate my kids.
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family.
(My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hardworking and honest, except for that breaking in part.)
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hardworking and honest person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college.(TEEHEE)
And what a deal it is for me!!!
...I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold,
uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to
Make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them...
Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! ...Only in America.
If you agree, pass it on...
(...in English ).
If not, just blow it off.........
...Along with your future Social Security benefits, your country's sovereignty,
your children's future, and a lot of other
'pesky little things'.
http://www.seadogbytes.com
"The e-mail Bag"
The challenge of retirement is how to spend time without spending money. ~Author Unknown
ADULT:
A person who has stopped growing at both ends and is now growing in the middle.
BEAUTY PARLOR:
A place where women curl up and dye.
CANNIBAL:
Someone who is fed up with people.
CHICKENS:
The only animals you eat before they are born and after they are dead.
COMMITTEE:
A body that keeps minutes and wastes hours.
DUST:
Mud with the juice squeezed out.
EGOTIST:
Someone who is usually me-deep in conversation.
HANDKERCHIEF:
Cold Storage.
INFLATION:
Cutting money in half without damaging the paper.
MOSQUITO:
An insect that makes you like flies better.
RAISIN:
Grape with a sunburn.
SECRET:
Something you tell to one person at a time.
SKELETON:
A bunch of bones with the person scraped off.
TOOTHACHE:
The pain that drives you to extraction.
TOMORROW:
One of the greatest labor saving devices of today.
YAWN:
An honest opinion openly expressed.
WRINKLES:
Something other people have, similar to my character lines.
Friday, July 17, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090717
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"My Comments"
Call your family members. Call your friends. Urge all of (y)our US Senators to vote "NO" on "Hate Crime" legislation!
My views are that the "Hate Crime" legislation which has already passed in the US House, and is waiting for a vote in the US Senate, is properly named by this Democrat Party majority legislation, and is designed to damage and/or destroy Judeo-Christian social values throughout America. If passed and signed into law by President Obama, it will then be illegal to promote our Christian social values as described in our Holy Bible. To openly oppose homosexuality; the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community etc., we will become criminals under this legislation. To vote “Yes” on this “Hate Crime” legislation is an attack on Judeo-Christian social values. We must know and remember (y)our elected members on Capitol Hill who votes to oppose or support this legislation. On "Election Day", vote to defeat any and all candidates who support this heinous legislation. Is this the wicked legislation "Change" you, your family, and/or your friends voted for? May God help us all, and may God Bless America! -- oyh
SCOTUS Nominee - Sonia Sotomayor
Some Republicans in the US Senate continue to act in a matter that has gotten the GOP in political trouble across America. In the Judiciary hearings with Sonia Sotomayor as the candidate, I found it difficult to understand as to whether we were watching and listening to a Sonia Sotomayor of recorded history, or we were seeing and talking to a Sonia Sotomayor whom was seeking votes from Republican Party members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Sonia Sotomayor’s records versus her answers were different and very much like an automobile’s windshield wiper.
Why do Republicans Party members vote for a nominated member of SCOTUS who oppose of the legal and political issues addressed? Why do Republican Party Senators politically weaken on these most important issues? Why do our Democrat and Republican Senators fail to make the “right” votes on the issues? Why can any US Senator vote for a candidate whose opinions that reaches SCOTUS was overturned at a rate of 60%? Is it that important to vote “Yes” just because President Obama offered Sonia Sotomayor as his first nominee? When will it end?
On this issue, why do GOP Senators fail to understand why Americans say there are little differences between the Democrats and the Republicans; especially on the social issues of the day? Were the Republican Senators not listening to those who have evidence of legal discrimination, and/or other erroneous wrongful decisions by Sonia Sotomayor? Conservative Americans are calling out for Republicans whom will stand on the fiscal and social issues. Are some of these elected officials so full of self-guilt, that they fail to stand up and vote for what is "right" on (y)our social issues? Who on Capitol Hill are listening? Who takes the time to care on this important “lifetime” appointment? - oyh
"Daily Motivations"
Until you accept total responsibility — no matter what — you will not be able to put plans in place to accomplish your goals. -- David Cottrell
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Seek the LORD while you can find Him. Call on Him now while He is near." (Isaiah 55:6)
One day a preschooler was riding his tricycle when his attention was captured by a line of ants crossing the driveway. He stopped his trike, and knelt down to peer at the busy ants. After some time, he had a terrible thought. His daddy would be coming home soon and would park right on top of the ant line!
The little boy decided to do something, so he shouted at the ants, but they paid no attention. Then he grabbed a big leaf and tried to herd them in another direction, but they just scurried around and re-formed their doomed line. After puzzling over the insolvable problem the boy eventually lost interest and wandered off to play with his toys.
Have you ever wondered what God sees when He looks down on us? There we are, billions of humans scurrying here and there, so caught up in our personal plans that we rarely look up. And if we do, how will we actually see God as He is?
Is it possible for a mere human, less than a tiny speck on a pebble of a planet in the midst of a vast galaxy, to know the great God who created everything? If so, can we really know God well enough to trust Him with the most sensitive areas of our lives?
This is why the infinite God took on human form in the person of Jesus. He reached out to us in a way that we could grasp, because He desired to be known by us. He is not an impersonal life force that cannot feel our pain. Rather, He is a personal spirit who wants an intimate relationship with us.
"The Patriot Post"
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." -- John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
"FRC" (Family Research Council)
Share with Friends
Now is the time to take a stand against a clear and present danger to our first amendment freedoms of speech and religion - Hate Crimes legislation. We have confirmation that a vote on Hate Crimes will happen this week, possibly even today. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin confirmed he will support an effort to attach an expansion of Hate Crimes to a defense appropriations bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
Here's why it matters: If passed, this Hate Crimes law will eventually result in efforts to silence pastors like you, churches like yours, and other faith-based organizations you agree with just because we publicly but peacefully oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds.
Here's what you can do:
1. Inform your Church about this dangerous legislation: We have several free resources to help:
First, click on the link to watch a brief video message and then pass on this link to everyone on your email list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27eRvoPM0bk. You might also consider showing it to your church.
Second, we have two biblically based messages to choose from for use in your midweek Bible-study. Click to download: "Hate Crimes: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians" and "Paving the Way for Persecution: What Every Christian Must Know and Do About 'Hate Crimes' Laws."
Third, there is a freshly updated Bulletin Insert that can help inform your church members. Click here to download the Bulletin Insert, print it out, copy it double-sided, cut down the middle, then distribute the half-sheet copies to your church members.
2. Urge your church members to call their Senators as soon as possible. Here are some simple steps:
Call the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Tell them the state you are from, and that you would like to talk with your Senators.
Tell the Senator's staffer that you are against expanding Hate Crimes laws to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" because of the threat to our Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion as Christians.
Or visit www.FRC.org and click on Contact Officials to send an e-mail, but calls and personal letters are probably more effective.
According to Christian legal experts, if hate crimes legislation is enacted, it could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Don't believe it? Watch this video of a group of Christians who were handing out Gospel tracts during a Gay Pride Parade in Philadelphia and got arrested based on the local "hate crimes" legislation.
Forward this e-mail on to all your pastor friends. We are literally hours away from a vote. If we are going to obey the command of Jesus to be salt and light in this situation, now is the time to act!
Standing for Faith, Family and Freedom,
Dr. Kenyn M. Cureton
Vice President for Church Ministries
Family Research Council
www.frc.org
"Liberty Counsel"
Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org
July 16, 2009
Hate Crimes Vote Tonight / Victory in Bible Controversy
www.LC.org
Senator Harry Reid’s Power Play to Push Hate Crimes Agenda Puts Military at Risk
Yesterday while Americans were occupied with the Senate confirmation hearings and other important matters, Senator Harry Reid personally filed two "hate crimes" amendments to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill. There could be a vote around midnight tonight.
Call Sen. Reid and your own senators right now and tell them that our men and women in the armed forces should not be put at risk of being denied funding because the controversial hate crimes amendment was attached to the military funding bill. Also tell them that they should not try to hide this bill from the American people with a late night vote. Reid's staff will try to convince you that this bill has been amended to make it acceptable. But this bill treats homosexuals better than veterans or the elderly, who are not protected in the bill. There is no victim who is more worthy of protection than any other victim.
Don't rely on emailing the senate. Your senators' staff needs to hear your voice! Call your senators today even if you called them before (find your senators HERE.) Call Reid’s Majority Leader office: 202-224-5556; Call Reid’s D.C. Senate office: 202-224-3542.
Read our News Release for more details.
Federal Court Rules for School Policy Allowing Distribution of Secular and Religious Material
Today the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the South Iron School District and upheld the right of the district to establish an open forum for distribution of materials on school property.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and held that the District’s new policy should not have been declared unconstitutional by the lower court judge. Under the district’s policy, secular and religious material can be distributed by any group, including the Gideons.
Liberty Counsel has defended the school in the case of Doe v. South Iron R-1 School District since 2006. Mat Staver presented oral argument at the Court of Appeals.
Read our News Release for details on this case.
Read the Appeals Court's opinion.
Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings
The confirmation hearings have moved into the fourth day with more questioning of Judge Sotomayor. This morning Sen. Cornyn asked what kind of Justice she would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court: The Judge Sotomayor of her speeches or the Judge Sotomayor of her Court opinions? Then he read a series of contradictions between Judge Sotomayor's speeches and her statements before the Committee.
You can follow our LIVE BLOG of the entire hearing at www.LC.org, where you can also review the highlights of the past three days. Please continue to pray that the truth will come out in these hearings.
Receive our Liberty Alerts via RSS
Follow us on and
Forward this Liberty Alert to your entire e-mail list of family and friends, and encourage them to subscribe.
Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.
Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854
"Chuck Sproull"
Defining "Hatred" Legislation.
By Chuck Sproull
When looking objectively at so called "hate crimes" legislation, let's first look at what "hatred" is.
Hatred is an emotion that resides in the hearts of sinners, many times due to early childhood physical and emotional abuse by unduly harsh parental treatment. Some spend the rest of their lives hatefully abusing other people, without realizing it, just to get even with their parents' for abusing them. But God's love can heal their hearts and cleanse that emotion out of the hearts of believers when they "obey the gospel." I know by experience.
When a sinner enjoys the physical and emotional pleasures of sexual immorality (outside of God's will), his conscience and record in heaven is accumulating guilt and fear of future judgment. When a preacher who loves that person's soul is willing to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to him (or when normal people who love morality and love homosexual persons enough to resist their invasive spreading of homosexuality and encourage them to "fly straight" like a normal penguin); if that preaching or encouragement makes the homosexual feel uncomfortable and he reacts hatefully, that is because he already had those bad feelings in his own heart. And with loving encouragement he can be healed.
Regarding recent "Hate Speech" legislation - every American citizen needs protection from hatred and violence. Homosexuals need protection from hatred and bigotry by a small minority of normal people. But when normal people resist homosexual activism, no matter how good natured and caring most of us are, homosexual activists and sympathizers dishonestly site a very small percentage of violent bigotry (like the Matthew Shepard murder) and dishonestly accuse ALL of us of "hate speech" and "homophobia."
When homosexuals resist our efforts to enforce laws against their immorality, and help them become normal, their speech is always much more hateful than ours. Rom 2:1-3 explains that they are more guilty of the hatred and bigotry they accuse of. So, in actual fact, normal people are going to need protection from homosexuals' "hate speech."
"The Web"
Bork: Sotomayor Not 'Governed By Law'
http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=29465065001&s=al&promo_code=8378-1
Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law'
By: Jim Meyers
Legal scholar and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Newsmax he doesn't believe court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that she is "entirely governed by law," as he believes she should be.
In an exclusive interview, he also said Sotomayor, who's going through confirmation hearings before a Senate panel, should be disqualified from consideration because of a statement she made.
And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."
See Video: Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and the Senate hearings - Click Here Now http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bork_sotomayor/2009/07/14/235469.html?s=al&promo_code=8378-1
Bork was solicitor general and was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court in 1987. The Democratic Senate rejected his nomination after a contentious debate, and the seat on the bench eventually went to Anthony Kennedy.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications.
"That's entirely true," said Bork, whose latest book is "A Time to Speak — Selected Writings and Arguments."
"But the Supreme Court has only itself to blame for that. The Supreme Court made itself, starting in the 1950s, into an increasingly political institution, and once you're a political institution with that kind of power, people are going to fight to control the institution any way they can.
"In my case, I think the trigger was the fear that I might vote to overrule Roe against Wade."
Martella asked whether Sotomayor's statement that a Latina woman could make smarter decisions than a white male should have been "an immediate disqualifier."
"Yes," Bork stated, "except for the fact that, if we disqualify people for that kind of remark, we'd have to disqualify an awful lot of judges, because there is a lot of judging that takes place that is really visceral rather than intellectual."
Sotomayor also has made the controversial statement that appellate court judges make policy. Bork said: "In some sense, all judges make policy, because the fact that there's litigation means the question isn't [resolved] and the court has to settle that, which is to choose one policy rather than another.
"But the question is how you do that. If you do it by doing the best you can with the legal materials at hand, that's fine. If you do it without reference to the legal materials, without reference to the law, that is lawless."
Sotomayor ruled that New Haven, Conn., could deny firefighters promotions because they passed an exam that no African-American passed. Martella pointed out that the decision was made via summary judgment, with no trial, and asked Bork whether he thinks that was appropriate.
"No I don't," he responded.
"It really was a sign of disrespect to the litigants who were asking for justice. They should have had a full hearing and a reasoned opinion written for them, even if they lost. But they didn't get that."
What was telling about Sotomayor's decision in that case is "a preference for some minorities over the majority," he added.
"In this case, as a matter of fact, some minorities over other minorities, because there were Puerto Ricans that were denied promotions as well."
Bork called confirmation hearings such as Sotomayor's "something of a dance. The opposition asks tough questions, the nominee gives a soft and evasive answer and assures everybody that fidelity to the law is the only thing that matters.
"Then having gotten past that, when they're on the bench they go back to their prior practice of deciding politically. I don't take Sotomayor's protestations that she's entirely governed by law seriously. I think the statements she's made and the rulings she's made show that she's not governed entirely by law."
During confirmation hearings, Republicans don't mount "baseless smears" such as the one Bork was subjected to, said Martella, who asked Bork whether he thinks Republicans are "naïve in the confirmation proceedings."
"It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.
"I don't know if that's a Republican virtue or Republican timidity. But I think the Republicans are either going to have to persuade the Democrats to quit that approach to confirmations, or take up the same kind of tactics themselves, which would be too bad."
Although the current Supreme Court is generally seen as fairly balanced, Bork declared that, "by and large on big social issues, it is a liberal left court. I don't think it should be. I think it is ideological rather than legal, what they're doing."
And when asked what he believes has been the "most dangerous" Court ruling, Bork answered:
"I think it's proved to be Roe against Wade. We have very bitter politics over abortion.
"I understand it's different in Europe, where the issue is not nearly as explosive or as divisive, the reason being that in Europe by and large the issue is decided by legislatures. Each side fights it out, arrives at some kind of a conclusion, a compromise, and they go home deciding they can try again next year.
"Here, by contrast, voters and political parties are just told to shut up, and that makes them furious. So Roe against Wade, whatever else its demerits are, has really embittered our politics in ways that are most unhealthy."
It is an illusion!
http://www.my-tgif.com/illusion.htm
Guest Blogger: Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) on Shooting Down Missile Defense
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/15/guest-blogger-congressman-todd-akin-r-mo-on-shooting-down-missile-defense/
Ongoing Priorities
http://blog.heritage.org/category/ongoing-priorities/, Protect America http://blog.heritage.org/category/protect-america/.
As we celebrated our nation’s birthday, North Korea launched seven missiles, and is now preparing to launch a long-range ballistic missile, just months after testing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iran is developing both nuclear capabilities and long range missiles, recently disguised as a “space” launch. Meanwhile in Washington, Democrats in the White House and in Congress are dramatically cutting funds from our national missile defense system. In what world does it make sense to dramatically cut funding for the only system capable of defending our nation against the threat of rogue nations with nuclear ballistic missiles?
President Obama, in his FY2010 defense budget, proposed a $1.2 billion cut to missile defense funding and halted development on our long-range interceptors in Alaska and California. When Republicans on the Armed Services Committee, led by Reps. Michael Turner and Trent Franks, tried to restore funding to missile defense, the Democrat majority voted it down along party lines. Here is a quick rundown of the amendments offered in committee during the course of our five hour debate on missile defense recently.
Rep. Michael Turner offered an amendment to continue deployment of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, which would cost $120 million. Turner proposed that we cover $80 million of that bill by using money that the Obama administration has requested to dismantle the North Korean nuclear complex. I think most will agree that the odds of the North Koreans allowing us to dismantle their nuclear program in the near future is extremely slim. I believe that using that money to continue building a system that can actually intercept North Korean or Iranian missiles is much better than putting that money into an account that will not be used. The Democrat majority on the committee defeated this amendment 35-27.
Rep. Trent Franks offered an amendment to restore the $1.2 billion cut from missile defense by President Obama. The Democrats argued that this cut was reasonable, but in the face of Iranian and North Korean activities, any significant cut to missile defense funding seems foolish. In the last two months, we have seen Iran test its long-range missile capabilities (under the guise of a space launch) and North Korea test a nuclear weapon and launch (unsuccessfully) a long-range Taepo-Dong II missile. The North Koreans now appear to be preparing to launch yet another Taepo-Dong II. In the face of all of these activities, the Democrat majority on the Armed Services Committee voted down the Franks amendment to restore missile defense funding by a vote of 36-26. This amendment was then voted on by the full House of Representatives and again defeated along largely party lines.
There were a number of other amendments related to missile defense that we discussed, including Republican efforts to fund the European Site and the Airborne Laser, but they were all shot down by the Democrats. For the sake of our nation’s security, we should be focused on shooting down enemy missiles, not on shooting down our own missile defense system. As North Korea and Iran push forward, every member of the House of Representatives has taken a stand on missile defense. Unfortunately, it seems that the position of the Democratic majority is clear: shoot down missile defense.
COMMUNIST CZAR?????
Is President Obama turning America into a White House controlled government, appointing more than 30 "Czars" without any confirmation for "checks and balances"? Never before, has a White House been so expanded. America must awaken as to what is so silently happening and your "mainstream" media is not alarming, enlightening, and/or even informing you. - oyh
Radical Islam
"There may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam." ~ Robert Spencer
-Obama appointed Communist "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones, unreported by the media. Added to extensive list of "czars"
So...apparently Obama has quietly appointed a Communist to a government position. The position of "Green Jobs Czar" is now held by admitted Communist Van Jones. Yes, this is news to us too. The media has more important things to concentrate on, like Michael Jackson.
From East Bay Express:
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”
Maybe it is time that the American people, Congress, and the Judicial branch stood up and demanded an explanation and accountability for this unconstitutional position creating of "czar" on the part of the Obama administration. We as the American people have no idea what these people even do or how much power they have. They answer ONLY to President Obama.
The definition of a Czar in Merriam Webster’s dictionary is the following: “One having great power and authority.”
Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:
1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra.
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet.
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner
5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery.
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore.
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.
8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet.
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker.
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet.
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion.
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried.
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis.
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney.
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet.
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney).
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair.
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein.
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet.
21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison.
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell.
23. Science Czar: John Holdren.
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones.
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke.
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration.
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross.
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra.
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley.
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois.
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
Obviously, many more czars have been added since the picture below, but you get the idea. There really is nothing like shredding the Constitution and completely bypassing the American people and Congress.
Hate Crimes vote this week! Call your Senators NOW!
Share with Friends
Now is the time to take a stand against a clear and present danger to our first amendment freedoms of speech and religion - Hate Crimes legislation. We have confirmation that a vote on Hate Crimes will happen this week, possibly even today. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin confirmed he will support an effort to attach an expansion of Hate Crimes to a defense appropriations bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
Here's why it matters: If passed, this Hate Crimes law will eventually result in efforts to silence pastors like you, churches like yours, and other faith-based organizations you agree with just because we publicly but peacefully oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds.
Here's what you can do:
1. Inform your Church about this dangerous legislation: We have several free resources to help:
First, click on the link to watch a brief video message and then pass on this link to everyone on your email list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27eRvoPM0bk. You might also consider showing it to your church.
Second, we have two biblically based messages to choose from for use in your midweek Bible-study. Click to download: "Hate Crimes: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians" and "Paving the Way for Persecution: What Every Christian Must Know and Do About 'Hate Crimes' Laws."
Third, there is a freshly updated Bulletin Insert that can help inform your church members. Click here to download the Bulletin Insert, print it out, copy it double-sided, cut down the middle, then distribute the half-sheet copies to your church members.
2. Urge your church members to call their Senators as soon as possible. Here are some simple steps:
Call the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Tell them the state you are from, and that you would like to talk with your Senators.
Tell the Senator's staffer that you are against expanding Hate Crimes laws to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" because of the threat to our Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion as Christians.
Or visit www.FRC.org and click on Contact Officials to send an e-mail, but calls and personal letters are probably more effective.
According to Christian legal experts, if hate crimes legislation is enacted, it could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Don't believe it? Watch this video of a group of Christians who were handing out Gospel tracts during a Gay Pride Parade in Philadelphia and got arrested based on the local "hate crimes" legislation.
Forward this e-mail on to all your pastor friends. We are literally hours away from a vote. If we are going to obey the command of Jesus to be salt and light in this situation, now is the time to act!
Standing for Faith, Family and Freedom,
Dr. Kenyn M. Cureton
Vice President for Church Ministries
Family Research Council
www.frc.org
Obama's healthcare: You can keep the change!
http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=2331
The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. We now have helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.
Obama wants to have our healthcare like Canada's and England's.
In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.
Looks like Obama is sure keeping his word ****CHANGES. We better have our funerals paid up, may be needing it sooner rather than later with no doctors on our side to keep us healthy. What will this world be like in another 20 YEARS WHEN OUR KIDS ARE READY FOR RETIREMENT?
SAD!!!
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited recently by Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and its’ allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable.
Grandma's Hands
5 Generations - Grandma's Hand - Mom's Hand - My Sister's Hand - My Niece's Hand & My Great Niece
Grandma, some ninety-plus years, sat feebly on the patio bench. She didn't move, just sat with her head down staring at her hands.
When I sat down beside her she didn't acknowledge my presence and the longer I sat I wondered if she was OK.
Finally, not really wanting to disturb her but wanting to check on her at the same time, I asked her if she was OK. She raised her head and looked at me and smiled.
“Yes, I'm fine, thank you for asking,” she said in a clear strong voice.
“I didn't mean to disturb you, Grandma, but you were just sitting here staring at your hands and I wanted to make sure you were OK,” I explained to her.
“Have you ever looked at your hands,” she asked. “I mean really looked at your hands?”
I slowly opened my hands and stared down at them. I turned them over, palms up and then palms down. No, I guess I had never really looked at my hands as I tried to figure out the point she was making.
Grandma smiled and related this story:
Stop and think for a moment about the hands you have, how they have served you well throughout your years. These hands, though wrinkled shriveled and weak have been the tools I have used all my life to reach out and grab and embrace life.
They braced and caught my fall when as a toddler I crashed upon the floor.
They put food in my mouth and clothes on my back. As a child, my mother taught me to fold them in prayer. They tied my shoes and pulled on my boots. They held my husband and wiped my tears when he went off to war.
They have been dirty, scraped and raw, swollen and bent. They were uneasy and clumsy when I tried to hold my newborn son. Decorated with my wedding band they showed the world that I was married and loved someone special.
They wrote my letters to him and trembled and shook when I buried my parents and spouse. They have held my children and grandchildren, consoled neighbors, and shook in fists of anger when I didn't understand.
They have covered my face, combed my hair, and washed and cleansed the rest of my body. They have been sticky and wet, bent and broken, dried and raw. And to this day when not much of anything else of me works real well these hands hold me up, lay me down, and again continue to fold in prayer.
These hands are the mark of where I've been and the ruggedness of life.
But more importantly it will be these hands that God will reach out and take when he leads me home. And with my hands He will lift me to His side and there I will use these hands to touch the face of God.
I will never look at my hands the same again. But I remember God reached out and took my grandma's hands and led her home.
When my hands are hurt or sore or when I stroke the face of my children and husband I think of grandma. I know she has been stroked and caressed and held by the hands of God.
I, too, want to touch the face of God and feel His hands upon my face.
"The e-mail Bag"
POLK COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF GRADY JUDD
An illegal alien in Polk County Florida who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop ended up 'executing' the deputy who stopped him.
The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.
The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. After he shot at them, SWAT team officers open fired and hit the guy 68 times.
Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they shot the poor undocumented immigrant 68 times.
Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel:
Talk about an all-time classic answer. 'Because that's all the bullets we had.
"My Comments"
Call your family members. Call your friends. Urge all of (y)our US Senators to vote "NO" on "Hate Crime" legislation!
My views are that the "Hate Crime" legislation which has already passed in the US House, and is waiting for a vote in the US Senate, is properly named by this Democrat Party majority legislation, and is designed to damage and/or destroy Judeo-Christian social values throughout America. If passed and signed into law by President Obama, it will then be illegal to promote our Christian social values as described in our Holy Bible. To openly oppose homosexuality; the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community etc., we will become criminals under this legislation. To vote “Yes” on this “Hate Crime” legislation is an attack on Judeo-Christian social values. We must know and remember (y)our elected members on Capitol Hill who votes to oppose or support this legislation. On "Election Day", vote to defeat any and all candidates who support this heinous legislation. Is this the wicked legislation "Change" you, your family, and/or your friends voted for? May God help us all, and may God Bless America! -- oyh
SCOTUS Nominee - Sonia Sotomayor
Some Republicans in the US Senate continue to act in a matter that has gotten the GOP in political trouble across America. In the Judiciary hearings with Sonia Sotomayor as the candidate, I found it difficult to understand as to whether we were watching and listening to a Sonia Sotomayor of recorded history, or we were seeing and talking to a Sonia Sotomayor whom was seeking votes from Republican Party members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Sonia Sotomayor’s records versus her answers were different and very much like an automobile’s windshield wiper.
Why do Republicans Party members vote for a nominated member of SCOTUS who oppose of the legal and political issues addressed? Why do Republican Party Senators politically weaken on these most important issues? Why do our Democrat and Republican Senators fail to make the “right” votes on the issues? Why can any US Senator vote for a candidate whose opinions that reaches SCOTUS was overturned at a rate of 60%? Is it that important to vote “Yes” just because President Obama offered Sonia Sotomayor as his first nominee? When will it end?
On this issue, why do GOP Senators fail to understand why Americans say there are little differences between the Democrats and the Republicans; especially on the social issues of the day? Were the Republican Senators not listening to those who have evidence of legal discrimination, and/or other erroneous wrongful decisions by Sonia Sotomayor? Conservative Americans are calling out for Republicans whom will stand on the fiscal and social issues. Are some of these elected officials so full of self-guilt, that they fail to stand up and vote for what is "right" on (y)our social issues? Who on Capitol Hill are listening? Who takes the time to care on this important “lifetime” appointment? - oyh
"Daily Motivations"
Until you accept total responsibility — no matter what — you will not be able to put plans in place to accomplish your goals. -- David Cottrell
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Seek the LORD while you can find Him. Call on Him now while He is near." (Isaiah 55:6)
One day a preschooler was riding his tricycle when his attention was captured by a line of ants crossing the driveway. He stopped his trike, and knelt down to peer at the busy ants. After some time, he had a terrible thought. His daddy would be coming home soon and would park right on top of the ant line!
The little boy decided to do something, so he shouted at the ants, but they paid no attention. Then he grabbed a big leaf and tried to herd them in another direction, but they just scurried around and re-formed their doomed line. After puzzling over the insolvable problem the boy eventually lost interest and wandered off to play with his toys.
Have you ever wondered what God sees when He looks down on us? There we are, billions of humans scurrying here and there, so caught up in our personal plans that we rarely look up. And if we do, how will we actually see God as He is?
Is it possible for a mere human, less than a tiny speck on a pebble of a planet in the midst of a vast galaxy, to know the great God who created everything? If so, can we really know God well enough to trust Him with the most sensitive areas of our lives?
This is why the infinite God took on human form in the person of Jesus. He reached out to us in a way that we could grasp, because He desired to be known by us. He is not an impersonal life force that cannot feel our pain. Rather, He is a personal spirit who wants an intimate relationship with us.
"The Patriot Post"
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." -- John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
"FRC" (Family Research Council)
Share with Friends
Now is the time to take a stand against a clear and present danger to our first amendment freedoms of speech and religion - Hate Crimes legislation. We have confirmation that a vote on Hate Crimes will happen this week, possibly even today. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin confirmed he will support an effort to attach an expansion of Hate Crimes to a defense appropriations bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
Here's why it matters: If passed, this Hate Crimes law will eventually result in efforts to silence pastors like you, churches like yours, and other faith-based organizations you agree with just because we publicly but peacefully oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds.
Here's what you can do:
1. Inform your Church about this dangerous legislation: We have several free resources to help:
First, click on the link to watch a brief video message and then pass on this link to everyone on your email list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27eRvoPM0bk. You might also consider showing it to your church.
Second, we have two biblically based messages to choose from for use in your midweek Bible-study. Click to download: "Hate Crimes: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians" and "Paving the Way for Persecution: What Every Christian Must Know and Do About 'Hate Crimes' Laws."
Third, there is a freshly updated Bulletin Insert that can help inform your church members. Click here to download the Bulletin Insert, print it out, copy it double-sided, cut down the middle, then distribute the half-sheet copies to your church members.
2. Urge your church members to call their Senators as soon as possible. Here are some simple steps:
Call the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Tell them the state you are from, and that you would like to talk with your Senators.
Tell the Senator's staffer that you are against expanding Hate Crimes laws to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" because of the threat to our Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion as Christians.
Or visit www.FRC.org and click on Contact Officials to send an e-mail, but calls and personal letters are probably more effective.
According to Christian legal experts, if hate crimes legislation is enacted, it could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Don't believe it? Watch this video of a group of Christians who were handing out Gospel tracts during a Gay Pride Parade in Philadelphia and got arrested based on the local "hate crimes" legislation.
Forward this e-mail on to all your pastor friends. We are literally hours away from a vote. If we are going to obey the command of Jesus to be salt and light in this situation, now is the time to act!
Standing for Faith, Family and Freedom,
Dr. Kenyn M. Cureton
Vice President for Church Ministries
Family Research Council
www.frc.org
"Liberty Counsel"
Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org
July 16, 2009
Hate Crimes Vote Tonight / Victory in Bible Controversy
www.LC.org
Senator Harry Reid’s Power Play to Push Hate Crimes Agenda Puts Military at Risk
Yesterday while Americans were occupied with the Senate confirmation hearings and other important matters, Senator Harry Reid personally filed two "hate crimes" amendments to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill. There could be a vote around midnight tonight.
Call Sen. Reid and your own senators right now and tell them that our men and women in the armed forces should not be put at risk of being denied funding because the controversial hate crimes amendment was attached to the military funding bill. Also tell them that they should not try to hide this bill from the American people with a late night vote. Reid's staff will try to convince you that this bill has been amended to make it acceptable. But this bill treats homosexuals better than veterans or the elderly, who are not protected in the bill. There is no victim who is more worthy of protection than any other victim.
Don't rely on emailing the senate. Your senators' staff needs to hear your voice! Call your senators today even if you called them before (find your senators HERE.) Call Reid’s Majority Leader office: 202-224-5556; Call Reid’s D.C. Senate office: 202-224-3542.
Read our News Release for more details.
Federal Court Rules for School Policy Allowing Distribution of Secular and Religious Material
Today the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the South Iron School District and upheld the right of the district to establish an open forum for distribution of materials on school property.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and held that the District’s new policy should not have been declared unconstitutional by the lower court judge. Under the district’s policy, secular and religious material can be distributed by any group, including the Gideons.
Liberty Counsel has defended the school in the case of Doe v. South Iron R-1 School District since 2006. Mat Staver presented oral argument at the Court of Appeals.
Read our News Release for details on this case.
Read the Appeals Court's opinion.
Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings
The confirmation hearings have moved into the fourth day with more questioning of Judge Sotomayor. This morning Sen. Cornyn asked what kind of Justice she would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court: The Judge Sotomayor of her speeches or the Judge Sotomayor of her Court opinions? Then he read a series of contradictions between Judge Sotomayor's speeches and her statements before the Committee.
You can follow our LIVE BLOG of the entire hearing at www.LC.org, where you can also review the highlights of the past three days. Please continue to pray that the truth will come out in these hearings.
Receive our Liberty Alerts via RSS
Follow us on and
Forward this Liberty Alert to your entire e-mail list of family and friends, and encourage them to subscribe.
Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.
Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854
"Chuck Sproull"
Defining "Hatred" Legislation.
By Chuck Sproull
When looking objectively at so called "hate crimes" legislation, let's first look at what "hatred" is.
Hatred is an emotion that resides in the hearts of sinners, many times due to early childhood physical and emotional abuse by unduly harsh parental treatment. Some spend the rest of their lives hatefully abusing other people, without realizing it, just to get even with their parents' for abusing them. But God's love can heal their hearts and cleanse that emotion out of the hearts of believers when they "obey the gospel." I know by experience.
When a sinner enjoys the physical and emotional pleasures of sexual immorality (outside of God's will), his conscience and record in heaven is accumulating guilt and fear of future judgment. When a preacher who loves that person's soul is willing to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to him (or when normal people who love morality and love homosexual persons enough to resist their invasive spreading of homosexuality and encourage them to "fly straight" like a normal penguin); if that preaching or encouragement makes the homosexual feel uncomfortable and he reacts hatefully, that is because he already had those bad feelings in his own heart. And with loving encouragement he can be healed.
Regarding recent "Hate Speech" legislation - every American citizen needs protection from hatred and violence. Homosexuals need protection from hatred and bigotry by a small minority of normal people. But when normal people resist homosexual activism, no matter how good natured and caring most of us are, homosexual activists and sympathizers dishonestly site a very small percentage of violent bigotry (like the Matthew Shepard murder) and dishonestly accuse ALL of us of "hate speech" and "homophobia."
When homosexuals resist our efforts to enforce laws against their immorality, and help them become normal, their speech is always much more hateful than ours. Rom 2:1-3 explains that they are more guilty of the hatred and bigotry they accuse of. So, in actual fact, normal people are going to need protection from homosexuals' "hate speech."
"The Web"
Bork: Sotomayor Not 'Governed By Law'
http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=29465065001&s=al&promo_code=8378-1
Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law'
By: Jim Meyers
Legal scholar and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Newsmax he doesn't believe court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that she is "entirely governed by law," as he believes she should be.
In an exclusive interview, he also said Sotomayor, who's going through confirmation hearings before a Senate panel, should be disqualified from consideration because of a statement she made.
And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."
See Video: Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and the Senate hearings - Click Here Now http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bork_sotomayor/2009/07/14/235469.html?s=al&promo_code=8378-1
Bork was solicitor general and was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court in 1987. The Democratic Senate rejected his nomination after a contentious debate, and the seat on the bench eventually went to Anthony Kennedy.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications.
"That's entirely true," said Bork, whose latest book is "A Time to Speak — Selected Writings and Arguments."
"But the Supreme Court has only itself to blame for that. The Supreme Court made itself, starting in the 1950s, into an increasingly political institution, and once you're a political institution with that kind of power, people are going to fight to control the institution any way they can.
"In my case, I think the trigger was the fear that I might vote to overrule Roe against Wade."
Martella asked whether Sotomayor's statement that a Latina woman could make smarter decisions than a white male should have been "an immediate disqualifier."
"Yes," Bork stated, "except for the fact that, if we disqualify people for that kind of remark, we'd have to disqualify an awful lot of judges, because there is a lot of judging that takes place that is really visceral rather than intellectual."
Sotomayor also has made the controversial statement that appellate court judges make policy. Bork said: "In some sense, all judges make policy, because the fact that there's litigation means the question isn't [resolved] and the court has to settle that, which is to choose one policy rather than another.
"But the question is how you do that. If you do it by doing the best you can with the legal materials at hand, that's fine. If you do it without reference to the legal materials, without reference to the law, that is lawless."
Sotomayor ruled that New Haven, Conn., could deny firefighters promotions because they passed an exam that no African-American passed. Martella pointed out that the decision was made via summary judgment, with no trial, and asked Bork whether he thinks that was appropriate.
"No I don't," he responded.
"It really was a sign of disrespect to the litigants who were asking for justice. They should have had a full hearing and a reasoned opinion written for them, even if they lost. But they didn't get that."
What was telling about Sotomayor's decision in that case is "a preference for some minorities over the majority," he added.
"In this case, as a matter of fact, some minorities over other minorities, because there were Puerto Ricans that were denied promotions as well."
Bork called confirmation hearings such as Sotomayor's "something of a dance. The opposition asks tough questions, the nominee gives a soft and evasive answer and assures everybody that fidelity to the law is the only thing that matters.
"Then having gotten past that, when they're on the bench they go back to their prior practice of deciding politically. I don't take Sotomayor's protestations that she's entirely governed by law seriously. I think the statements she's made and the rulings she's made show that she's not governed entirely by law."
During confirmation hearings, Republicans don't mount "baseless smears" such as the one Bork was subjected to, said Martella, who asked Bork whether he thinks Republicans are "naïve in the confirmation proceedings."
"It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.
"I don't know if that's a Republican virtue or Republican timidity. But I think the Republicans are either going to have to persuade the Democrats to quit that approach to confirmations, or take up the same kind of tactics themselves, which would be too bad."
Although the current Supreme Court is generally seen as fairly balanced, Bork declared that, "by and large on big social issues, it is a liberal left court. I don't think it should be. I think it is ideological rather than legal, what they're doing."
And when asked what he believes has been the "most dangerous" Court ruling, Bork answered:
"I think it's proved to be Roe against Wade. We have very bitter politics over abortion.
"I understand it's different in Europe, where the issue is not nearly as explosive or as divisive, the reason being that in Europe by and large the issue is decided by legislatures. Each side fights it out, arrives at some kind of a conclusion, a compromise, and they go home deciding they can try again next year.
"Here, by contrast, voters and political parties are just told to shut up, and that makes them furious. So Roe against Wade, whatever else its demerits are, has really embittered our politics in ways that are most unhealthy."
It is an illusion!
http://www.my-tgif.com/illusion.htm
Guest Blogger: Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) on Shooting Down Missile Defense
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/15/guest-blogger-congressman-todd-akin-r-mo-on-shooting-down-missile-defense/
Ongoing Priorities
http://blog.heritage.org/category/ongoing-priorities/, Protect America http://blog.heritage.org/category/protect-america/.
As we celebrated our nation’s birthday, North Korea launched seven missiles, and is now preparing to launch a long-range ballistic missile, just months after testing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iran is developing both nuclear capabilities and long range missiles, recently disguised as a “space” launch. Meanwhile in Washington, Democrats in the White House and in Congress are dramatically cutting funds from our national missile defense system. In what world does it make sense to dramatically cut funding for the only system capable of defending our nation against the threat of rogue nations with nuclear ballistic missiles?
President Obama, in his FY2010 defense budget, proposed a $1.2 billion cut to missile defense funding and halted development on our long-range interceptors in Alaska and California. When Republicans on the Armed Services Committee, led by Reps. Michael Turner and Trent Franks, tried to restore funding to missile defense, the Democrat majority voted it down along party lines. Here is a quick rundown of the amendments offered in committee during the course of our five hour debate on missile defense recently.
Rep. Michael Turner offered an amendment to continue deployment of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, which would cost $120 million. Turner proposed that we cover $80 million of that bill by using money that the Obama administration has requested to dismantle the North Korean nuclear complex. I think most will agree that the odds of the North Koreans allowing us to dismantle their nuclear program in the near future is extremely slim. I believe that using that money to continue building a system that can actually intercept North Korean or Iranian missiles is much better than putting that money into an account that will not be used. The Democrat majority on the committee defeated this amendment 35-27.
Rep. Trent Franks offered an amendment to restore the $1.2 billion cut from missile defense by President Obama. The Democrats argued that this cut was reasonable, but in the face of Iranian and North Korean activities, any significant cut to missile defense funding seems foolish. In the last two months, we have seen Iran test its long-range missile capabilities (under the guise of a space launch) and North Korea test a nuclear weapon and launch (unsuccessfully) a long-range Taepo-Dong II missile. The North Koreans now appear to be preparing to launch yet another Taepo-Dong II. In the face of all of these activities, the Democrat majority on the Armed Services Committee voted down the Franks amendment to restore missile defense funding by a vote of 36-26. This amendment was then voted on by the full House of Representatives and again defeated along largely party lines.
There were a number of other amendments related to missile defense that we discussed, including Republican efforts to fund the European Site and the Airborne Laser, but they were all shot down by the Democrats. For the sake of our nation’s security, we should be focused on shooting down enemy missiles, not on shooting down our own missile defense system. As North Korea and Iran push forward, every member of the House of Representatives has taken a stand on missile defense. Unfortunately, it seems that the position of the Democratic majority is clear: shoot down missile defense.
COMMUNIST CZAR?????
Is President Obama turning America into a White House controlled government, appointing more than 30 "Czars" without any confirmation for "checks and balances"? Never before, has a White House been so expanded. America must awaken as to what is so silently happening and your "mainstream" media is not alarming, enlightening, and/or even informing you. - oyh
Radical Islam
"There may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam." ~ Robert Spencer
-Obama appointed Communist "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones, unreported by the media. Added to extensive list of "czars"
So...apparently Obama has quietly appointed a Communist to a government position. The position of "Green Jobs Czar" is now held by admitted Communist Van Jones. Yes, this is news to us too. The media has more important things to concentrate on, like Michael Jackson.
From East Bay Express:
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”
Maybe it is time that the American people, Congress, and the Judicial branch stood up and demanded an explanation and accountability for this unconstitutional position creating of "czar" on the part of the Obama administration. We as the American people have no idea what these people even do or how much power they have. They answer ONLY to President Obama.
The definition of a Czar in Merriam Webster’s dictionary is the following: “One having great power and authority.”
Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:
1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra.
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet.
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner
5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery.
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore.
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.
8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet.
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker.
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet.
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion.
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried.
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis.
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney.
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet.
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney).
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair.
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein.
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet.
21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison.
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell.
23. Science Czar: John Holdren.
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones.
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke.
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration.
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross.
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra.
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley.
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois.
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
Obviously, many more czars have been added since the picture below, but you get the idea. There really is nothing like shredding the Constitution and completely bypassing the American people and Congress.
Hate Crimes vote this week! Call your Senators NOW!
Share with Friends
Now is the time to take a stand against a clear and present danger to our first amendment freedoms of speech and religion - Hate Crimes legislation. We have confirmation that a vote on Hate Crimes will happen this week, possibly even today. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin confirmed he will support an effort to attach an expansion of Hate Crimes to a defense appropriations bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
Here's why it matters: If passed, this Hate Crimes law will eventually result in efforts to silence pastors like you, churches like yours, and other faith-based organizations you agree with just because we publicly but peacefully oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds.
Here's what you can do:
1. Inform your Church about this dangerous legislation: We have several free resources to help:
First, click on the link to watch a brief video message and then pass on this link to everyone on your email list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27eRvoPM0bk. You might also consider showing it to your church.
Second, we have two biblically based messages to choose from for use in your midweek Bible-study. Click to download: "Hate Crimes: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians" and "Paving the Way for Persecution: What Every Christian Must Know and Do About 'Hate Crimes' Laws."
Third, there is a freshly updated Bulletin Insert that can help inform your church members. Click here to download the Bulletin Insert, print it out, copy it double-sided, cut down the middle, then distribute the half-sheet copies to your church members.
2. Urge your church members to call their Senators as soon as possible. Here are some simple steps:
Call the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Tell them the state you are from, and that you would like to talk with your Senators.
Tell the Senator's staffer that you are against expanding Hate Crimes laws to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" because of the threat to our Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion as Christians.
Or visit www.FRC.org and click on Contact Officials to send an e-mail, but calls and personal letters are probably more effective.
According to Christian legal experts, if hate crimes legislation is enacted, it could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Don't believe it? Watch this video of a group of Christians who were handing out Gospel tracts during a Gay Pride Parade in Philadelphia and got arrested based on the local "hate crimes" legislation.
Forward this e-mail on to all your pastor friends. We are literally hours away from a vote. If we are going to obey the command of Jesus to be salt and light in this situation, now is the time to act!
Standing for Faith, Family and Freedom,
Dr. Kenyn M. Cureton
Vice President for Church Ministries
Family Research Council
www.frc.org
Obama's healthcare: You can keep the change!
http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=2331
The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. We now have helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.
Obama wants to have our healthcare like Canada's and England's.
In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.
Looks like Obama is sure keeping his word ****CHANGES. We better have our funerals paid up, may be needing it sooner rather than later with no doctors on our side to keep us healthy. What will this world be like in another 20 YEARS WHEN OUR KIDS ARE READY FOR RETIREMENT?
SAD!!!
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited recently by Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and its’ allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable.
Grandma's Hands
5 Generations - Grandma's Hand - Mom's Hand - My Sister's Hand - My Niece's Hand & My Great Niece
Grandma, some ninety-plus years, sat feebly on the patio bench. She didn't move, just sat with her head down staring at her hands.
When I sat down beside her she didn't acknowledge my presence and the longer I sat I wondered if she was OK.
Finally, not really wanting to disturb her but wanting to check on her at the same time, I asked her if she was OK. She raised her head and looked at me and smiled.
“Yes, I'm fine, thank you for asking,” she said in a clear strong voice.
“I didn't mean to disturb you, Grandma, but you were just sitting here staring at your hands and I wanted to make sure you were OK,” I explained to her.
“Have you ever looked at your hands,” she asked. “I mean really looked at your hands?”
I slowly opened my hands and stared down at them. I turned them over, palms up and then palms down. No, I guess I had never really looked at my hands as I tried to figure out the point she was making.
Grandma smiled and related this story:
Stop and think for a moment about the hands you have, how they have served you well throughout your years. These hands, though wrinkled shriveled and weak have been the tools I have used all my life to reach out and grab and embrace life.
They braced and caught my fall when as a toddler I crashed upon the floor.
They put food in my mouth and clothes on my back. As a child, my mother taught me to fold them in prayer. They tied my shoes and pulled on my boots. They held my husband and wiped my tears when he went off to war.
They have been dirty, scraped and raw, swollen and bent. They were uneasy and clumsy when I tried to hold my newborn son. Decorated with my wedding band they showed the world that I was married and loved someone special.
They wrote my letters to him and trembled and shook when I buried my parents and spouse. They have held my children and grandchildren, consoled neighbors, and shook in fists of anger when I didn't understand.
They have covered my face, combed my hair, and washed and cleansed the rest of my body. They have been sticky and wet, bent and broken, dried and raw. And to this day when not much of anything else of me works real well these hands hold me up, lay me down, and again continue to fold in prayer.
These hands are the mark of where I've been and the ruggedness of life.
But more importantly it will be these hands that God will reach out and take when he leads me home. And with my hands He will lift me to His side and there I will use these hands to touch the face of God.
I will never look at my hands the same again. But I remember God reached out and took my grandma's hands and led her home.
When my hands are hurt or sore or when I stroke the face of my children and husband I think of grandma. I know she has been stroked and caressed and held by the hands of God.
I, too, want to touch the face of God and feel His hands upon my face.
"The e-mail Bag"
POLK COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF GRADY JUDD
An illegal alien in Polk County Florida who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop ended up 'executing' the deputy who stopped him.
The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.
The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. After he shot at them, SWAT team officers open fired and hit the guy 68 times.
Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they shot the poor undocumented immigrant 68 times.
Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel:
Talk about an all-time classic answer. 'Because that's all the bullets we had.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090716
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things. -- Plato
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see." (Hebrews 11:1)
We commonly speak of faithfulness as loyalty or allegiance. But as you look deeper at this word, you see the root word in faithfulness is "faith." Spiritually, the word means being full of faith. If you read chapter 11 in Hebrews, you will see a thread running through it: "By faith." Hebrews lists great deeds of faith by the ancient patriarchs.
Hebrews chapter 11 says, Noah, "built an ark to save his family from the flood. He obeyed God, who warned him about something that had never happened before." Later, Hebrews says, "It was by faith that Sarah together with Abraham was able to have a child, even though they were too old and Sarah was barren. Abraham believed that God would keep His promise..." to provide an heir because he considered God faithful.
The most serious challenge to Abraham's trust came when God asked him to sacrifice his own son. Strengthened by his prior experiences with God's faithfulness to His promises, Abraham bound Isaac and placed him on an altar, lifting the knife. That is when God provided the ram in the thicket as a substitute for Isaac. Abraham believed that when God said that He would provide a physical line through Isaac, God would fulfill that promise---even if it meant raising Isaac from the dead.
In the experience of the patriarchs, God did not exist in a vacuum. Their faith flowered into heroic deeds because they trusted in an absolutely faithful God. Their God was faithful down to the smallest detail.
"The Patriot Post"
"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." -- James Madison (likely), Federalist No. 62
"Why do we need President Obama's big-bang health-care reform at all? What's the real agenda here? If it's really to cover the truly uninsured, a much cheaper, targeted, small-ball approach would do the trick. But on the other hand, maybe the real goal is a larger, ultra-liberal plan aimed at a government takeover of the U.S. health system. ... According to the U.S. Census Bureau, we don't have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take out college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who choose not to sign up for a health-care plan, roughly 20 million people are removed from the list of uninsured. After that, you can remove the 10 million who are not U.S. citizens and the 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but for some reason have not signed up for those programs. So that leaves only 10 million to 15 million people among the long-term uninsured. Yes, they need help. And yes, they should get it. But not with mandatory universal coverage, or new government-backed insurance plans, or massive tax increases. And certainly not with the Canadian-European-style nationalization that has always been the true goal of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats. Instead, we can give the truly uninsured vouchers or debit cards that will allow for choice and coverage, and even health savings accounts for retirement wealth. ... Knocking down profits and telling people what to do because government planners know best, right? Wrong.. Absolutely wrong." -- economist Lawrence Kudlow
"The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less." --Ronald Reagan
INSIGHT
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution -- or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement." -- novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
LIBERTY
"I am in awe at what our military has accomplished in Iraq despite having most of the public and the vast majority of the media totally abandon them. In my view, what has been accomplished there, against all odds, is perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of our military and perhaps any volunteer force in modern times. I certainly love my country, but what it is that inspires men and women to volunteer for military service when the benefits are so sparse and the burdens so great is beyond my comprehension. We are all incredibly lucky to live in a nation that, despite all of its faults, still have enough courageous young people to serve it in ways that allow 'chicken hawks' (as the Left loves to describe conservative commentators who never served in the military) to worry about things that in comparison don't seem all that significant. Thank you for all you do for us. I wish we appreciated you in a way that was nearly as significant as what you deserve." -- radio talk-show host John Ziegler
OPINION IN BRIEF
"The anti-government protests in Iran following the government's rigged elections are doubtless a little more than the 'robust debate' among Iranians that President Barack Obama welcomed during the election. Some of the debaters have been shot dead. Others have been hustled off to jail. I wonder whether this is an eye-opener for our novice president. .... Yet my question remains: Has our sententious new president learned anything from the unforeseen violent culmination of the Iranian elections? Frankly, I doubt it. He reminds me so much of our most recent sanctimonious pontificator, President Jimmy Carter, who at first attempted to end the Cold War by lecturing Americans against their 'inordinate fear of communism.' Then the Soviets became more aggressive. Finally, Carter began the military buildup for which his successor took justifiable credit. President Ronald Reagan knew the value of a strong military in support of resolute diplomacy. Neither Carter nor Obama has any sense of the linkage of the two, and now it looks as if the Obama administration is going to cut back on our military, even as the dangers to world peace grow. At the heart of our new president is, it seems to me, ambivalence. Within him exist opposite attitudes. What we have seen during the protests in Iran is not a clear sense of geopolitics, but uncertainty. President Obama has not had a clue as to what to do. ... Let the mainstream media purr on about this president's mastery of government. My sense is that he is out of his depth. His dithering over the Iranian protests is but one bloody example." -- R. Emmett Tyrrell
RE: THE LEFT
"President Barack Obama came into office apparently believing that his non-traditional background, charisma and good intentions could placate dictators hostile to America and ease global tensions. ... But so far the world's thugs do not seem to appreciate that new goodwill. ... Obama's confusion about the world's bad actors suggests that he needs a general refresher course in the world of thugs. ... Being anti-American and mouthing tired charges about imperialism, colonialism or capitalism do not make a thug authentic or populist. By definition, thugs acquire power illegitimately. They keep it unlawfully. And they exercise it illegally -- regardless of their professed concern for the 'people' or their gripes against America. Thugs are thugs, and they come in all ideologies, colors and religions -- from Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to North Korea's Kim Jong-il to the late Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia. ... Most of the world's problems are caused by a handful of thugs. Any time one can be isolated and replaced by a consensual government, the world gets just a bit safer. ... So, Mr. President, do not talk to a thug unless you absolutely have to. Do not apologize to -- or put our trust in -- one. And whenever people rise up against a thug, speak out immediately and forcefully on their behalf -- and let the thug, not America, worry about the consequences of the spread of freedom." -- Hoover Institution historian Victor Davis Hanson
"AFA"
Senate ready to vote on 'hate crimes' bill
Call your senator in your own state. Ask your senator to vote "NO" on "Hate Crimes". - oyh
Urgent: Call your senators today to oppose any form of hate crimes legislation
July 15, 2009
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147485907
We have confirmation that a vote on the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes bill (S.909) will happen this week. It is likely that the bill will be introduced as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
The Hate Crimes legislation would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Even more troubling is that S.909 could create special protections for pedophiles. Democrats voted down an amendment to the bill that would have excluded pedophilia and other "sexual orientations" from the definition of "sexual orientation."
For years, AFA and other pro-family groups have issued warnings about federal Hate Crimes legislation. The reality is that the purpose of this bill is to silence those who speak out against homosexuality. If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.
Take Action!
Click here to get the direct telephone number for your two senators,
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/callalert/index.tt?alertid=13736111
along with suggested talking points for your call. Call your senators today to demand politely, but firmly, that they vote against any attempt on passage of Hate Crimes legislation. Congress has refused to define the term "sexual orientation," which means that all sexual orientations are protected.
Pastors, it is time to take a stand. Share this information with your members, and ask them to call.
"WND"
A Free Press For A Free People
Obama's birthday is 19 days away
Send him a postcard to remind him why that date is important to all of us
Aug. 4 is an important date to Barack Obama and an important date for all Americans.
Though he has never released a long-form birth certificate, Obama claims to have been born Aug. 4, 1961, in an unnamed Honolulu hospital that has yet to take credit for the historic birth of the baby who would become America's first black president.
WND's SuperStore has designed and printed postcards for the occasion. The front of the card raises the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The back is open for your personalized greetings.
"I'm encouraging Americans to send these postcards in plenty of time for Barack Obama's birthday," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND and someone who has made it his personal mission to find that missing birth certificate. "This is an opportunity to anyone to send two messages at once to Obama – one concerning the search for truth about his constitutional eligibility for office and the second your own personalized note."
Farah points out the postcards can be used to send notes to anyone – not just Barack Obama.
"These postcards are not pre-addressed to the White House," he said. "They are postcards that can be used to send to your friends, your member of Congress, your relatives. It's just another way of keeping the issue of eligibility on the front burner – right up through 2012 if necessary."
It's just the latest effort by Farah to raise the visibility of an issue he says was ignored by his colleagues in the media and most of the nation's elected officials, including Republicans.
"The Web"
Here it is... Your House Democrats National Health Care - oyh
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/15/753671/-BREAKING:-New-Right-Wing-Anti-Health-Care-Board-Game!
Honesty at Last!At Sotomayor's hearing, the abortion protestors are the only ones telling the truth.
By Dahlia Lithwick
See Slate's complete coverage of Sonia Sotomayor.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222842/
Sonia Sotomayor
Anyone who believes these confirmation hearings represent much beyond empty political theater should consider how meaningful these proceedings can really be when the only people speaking the truth are being systematically tackled and dragged screaming from the room. I am speaking of the abortion protestors, the fifth of which was hauled out today, shouting that Sen. Pat Leahy needs to go to confession. Each time it happens, the journalists look anxious, the nominee gets flustered, and Leahy unspools his Senate-decorum speech. But amid the half-truths and fantasies and dog whistles that compose the bulk of these hearings, I actually find the protesters quite refreshing.
Consider, for example, the questioning about Judge Sotomayor's judicial record. There isn't much of it. That's partly because the Republicans think her record tells us nothing about her, since her speeches (or, rather, a single line in one speech) reveal her true judicial temperament. But even when Sotomayor is being questioned about her judicial record, the focus isn't on her legal approach or process but on the outcomes. So when she talks about her Ricci decision, Jeff Sessions asks her why she didn't apply affirmative action precedents that had no bearing in a case that was not an affirmative action case. When she speaks about Didden, her eminent domain case, Republican Chuck Grassley asks why she didn't analyze the Kelo precedent in a case about timely filing. Nobody wants to hear how she got to a result. They want to know why she didn't get to their result. Time and again she is hectored for deciding the narrow issues before her. It's like a judicial-activism pep rally in here.
Senate Democrats are almost as confused. About half of them insist that she is a narrow, mechanical, pro-prosecution judge—the perfectly neutral umpire, John Roberts in sensible pumps. The other half utterly reject the balls-and-strikes talk, saying she's empathetic, dammit, and that's a good thing. Consider Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who said in his opening statement yesterday: "If your wide experience brings life to a sense of the difficult circumstances faced by the less powerful among us—the woman shunted around the bank from voicemail to voicemail as she tries to avoid foreclosure for her family; the family struggling to get by in the neighborhood where the police only come with raid jackets on; the couple up late at the kitchen table after the kids are in bed sweating out how to make ends meet that month; the man who believes a little differently, or looks a little different, or thinks things should be different—if you have empathy for those people in this job, you are doing nothing wrong." As Doug Kendall observed this morning, Democrats need to pick a horse and ride it. The alternative is Judge Sotomayor offering up a vision of herself as the world's most empathetic umpire, someone who feels deeply for everyone before coldly finding the objectively correct legal answer.
Which brings us to the nominee. She dodges, hedges, and evades her way through softball and hardball questions alike. But at least that was to be expected. She never once loses her temper today, smiling graciously whether she is praised or insulted and enduring all the crosstalk and double-talk without once looking annoyed.
Today's award for falsity goes to Sen. Lindsey Graham, who manages to both insult and patronize the nominee while promising in his sweet, porch-swing accent that he "likes her." He tells her, "There are many positive things about you, and these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad, and I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. It's hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem?" Judge Sotomayor replies, "No, sir," looking ready to be sent to the naughty chair, where he more or less sends her just a moment later when he lectures that "these hearings are time for self-reflection." As Adam Serwer wrote today, "That's just not a tone of voice you using when speaking to an adult."
Sen. Graham says with a straight face today that "when it comes to the idea that we should consciously try to include more people in the legal process and the judicial process, from different backgrounds, count me in." He says that just as he is asking a female Latina judge whether she is a bully/racist/sexist. He somehow feels that Sotomayor wants to take the law away from him and give it away to other, different people. And in that he seems to suffer from the same false assumption Eugene Robinson pointed to in his brilliant column today: "that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any 'identity'—black, brown, female, gay, whatever—has to be judged against this supposedly 'objective' standard." Sen. Graham would never have lectured Justices Roberts or Scalia about being bullies, because he thinks it's perfectly normal when men ask tough questions. He can't even see the irony in saying he welcomes wise Latina women—so long as they don't change a thing.
The reason I like the abortion protestors so much is that they come into the hearing room all stealthy and then yell precisely what they feel. It's true, everyone in the press corps now watches each new crop of civilian spectators like hawks as they rotate in; we're all wondering which sweet-faced person will erupt in a torrent of hate and rage and get dragged away. The protesters are, in a way, the mirror image of the nominee who must nod and smile sympathetically as she is insulted and second-guessed. But we'll never know what she's really thinking or even what the senators are really thinking. We all just smile and talk.
AP Video: Sotomayor Defends Firefighter Ruling
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
A Manual for Defeating the Gay Agenda
By Staff
http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/News_1/A_Manual_for_Defeating_the_Gay_Agenda.shtml
The war on marriage and the family is carried out on many fronts, with many commanders, each with a well-thought out strategy and plan of attack. Up to now, pro-family activists have lacked the most important information of all, a way to fight back based on a clear insight into the thinking and planning of the other side. Dr. Scott Lively, a prominent figure in the pro-family movement, has written a handbook "Redeeming the Rainbow" that lays out the strategy for defeating the homosexual agenda.
Dr. Lively's credentials are impressive. In addition to having a law degree, he has a Certificate in Human Rights from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. Like any good handbook, "Redeeming the Rainbow" pulls together the most useful information, then deals which each topic in depth. Dr. Lively's discussion of the origin of the homosexual rights movement is thought-provoking. No other source outside the homosexual rights movement contains as much useful material on the origins and ideology of the movement.
The section on psychological techniques used by homosexual rights activists to sway public opinion, and even bring some liberal churches over to their side, is must reading. Especially useful is the documentation Dr. Lively provides which exposes the tactics used to normalize homosexuality in the minds of the American people. Marshall Kirk's seven-point plan to change the way America thinks about homosexuality is included, as is the disturbing "Homosexual Manifesto." The Executive Director of the Maine Family Policy Council, Michael S. Heath, has also written an excellent column on the same subject.
Another virtue of "Redeeming the Rainbow" is that it is a resource on the ethics of homosexuality and a gold mine of authoritative quotes from Christian theologians on the subject. One vexing problem in the debate over homosexual rights is the notion that Christianity is neutral on the issue of homosexuality. Dr. Lively has added numerous quotes to shoot down this argument. Little known passages from the early Church Fathers, and theologians all the way up to John Calvin are included. Anyone who engages in the public debate over homosexual rights and same sex marriage is sure to find ammunition in this substantial and illuminating work.
After thoroughly analyzing the strategies used by homosexual activists to successfully implement their plan, Dr. Lively devotes an extensive section on the way each of us can fight back locally and nationally, both on an individual and organizational basis.
Dr. Lively's book is available free in pdf format, and we urge those who need a comprehensive resource in the debate over homosexual rights and same sex marriage to download a copy.
In commenting on Dr. Lively's new book, Mike Heath said, "Scott is a brave man who has important insights regarding what is going on culturally and morally in New England. He backs up his words with actions. Everyone should read this book."
Richard Viguerie: All Issues at Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Boil Down To One
http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/307
(Manassas, Virginia) The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, concerning the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
"Some Republican senators are finally hinting at the one issue that could dominate and make uniquely historic the Sotomayor hearings. As longtime Chicago-way Obama advisor David Axelrod said in a May 26, 2009 interview, the President nominated Sotomayor because 'he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his,' which was to 'adapt' - meaning change - 'constitutional principles and law.'
"That is a shocking admission of Obama's views, which go beyond judicial activism and undermine our constitutional structure based in separation of limited, enumerated powers.
"Judge Sotomayor's rulings, whether dealing with the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, private property rights, criminal law, use of foreign law, race, equal protection, and other areas of law, demonstrate that she is consistently 'empathetic' in favor of government power.
"In her speeches, Sotomayor has said policy is made by the courts, which affirms her view shared with Obama that judges may and should make law. That, however, usurps the powers of the people's elected representatives.
"All senators have a serious, constitutional obligation to the American people to explore in great detail such a dangerous and radical view of judicial power, especially for Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.
"President Obama is a statist. The real debate is no longer whether he is a socialist, but whether his ideology is authoritarian. The views of judicial power shared by Obama and Sotomayor are inconsistent with the Constitution itself, and that should disqualify this nominee for the highest and in some cases last forum to protect individual rights and prevent authoritarian government, which America's founders feared.
"These hearings are an opportunity for Republicans to define Obama, which they and John McCain's campaign failed to do in the 2008 election."
THE BIRTH OF THE SONG "PRECIOUS LORD"
http://www.frontiernet.net/~j_m_hoover/17.html
Back in 1932 I was 32 years old and a fairly new husband. My wife, Nettie, and I were living in a little apartment on Chicago's Southside. One hot August afternoon I had to go to St. Louis, where I was to be the featured soloist at a large revival meeting.
I didn't want to go. Nettie was in the last month of pregnancy with our first child. But a lot of people were expecting me in St. Louis. I kissed Nettie good-bye, clattered downstairs to our Model A and, in a fresh Lake Michigan breeze, chugged out of Chicago on Route 66.
However, outside the city, I discovered that in my anxiety at leaving, I had forgotten my music case. I wheeled around and headed back. I found Nettie sleeping peacefully. I hesitated by her bed; something was strongly telling me to stay. But eager to get on my way, and not wanting to disturb Nettie, I shrugged off the feeling and quietly slipped out of the room with my music.
The next night, in the steaming St. Louis heat, the crowd called on me to sing again and again. When I finally sat down, a messenger boy ran up with a Western Union telegram. I ripped open the envelope.
Pasted on the yellow sheet were the words: YOUR WIFE JUST DIED.
People were happily singing and clapping around me, but I could hardly keep from crying out. I rushed to a phone and called home. All I could hear on the other end was "Nettie is dead. Nettie is dead."
When I got back, I learned that Nettie had given birth to a boy. I swung between grief and joy. Yet that night, the baby died. I buried Nettie and our little boy together, in the same casket. Then I fell apart.
For days I closeted myself. I felt that God had done me an injustice. I didn't want to serve Him anymore or write gospel songs. I just wanted to go back to that jazz world I once knew so well. But then, as I hunched alone in that dark apartment those first sad days, I thought back to the afternoon I went to St. Louis. Something kept telling me to stay with Nettie.
Was that something God? Oh, if I had paid more attention to Him that day, I would have stayed and been with Nettie when she died. From that moment on I vowed to listen more closely to Him. But still I was lost in grief.
Everyone was kind to me, especially a friend, Professor Fry, who seemed to know what I needed. On the following Saturday evening he took me up to Malone's Poro College, a neighborhood music school. It was quiet; the late evening sun crept through the curtained windows. I sat down at the piano, and my hands began to browse over the keys. Something happened to me then. I felt at peace. I felt as though I could reach out and touch God. I found myself playing a melody, one into my head-they just seemed to fall into place:
Precious Lord, take my hand, lead me on, let me stand! I am tired,
I am weak, I am worn. Through the storm, through the night lead
me on to the light, Take my hand, precious Lord. Lead me home.
As the Lord gave me these words and melody, He also healed my spirit.
I learned that when we are in our deepest grief, when we feel farthest
from God, this is when He is closest, and when we are most open to His
restoring power. And so I go on living for God willingly and joyfully,
until that day comes when He will take me and gently lead me home.
-Tommy Dorsey
Quiz for People Who Know Everything
This is a quiz for people who know everything! I found out in a hurry that I didn't.
These are not trick questions. They are straight questions with straight answers.
1. Name the one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends.
2. What famous North American landmark is constantly moving backward?
3. Of all vegetables, only two can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons. All other vegetables must be replanted every year.. What are the only two perennial
vegetables?
4. What fruit has its seeds on the outside?
5. In many liquor stores, you can buy pear brandy, with a real pear inside the bottle. The pear is whole and ripe, and the bottle is genuine; it hasn't been cut in any way. How did the pear get inside the bottle?
6. Only three words in standard English begin with the letters 'dw' and they are all common words. Name two of them. {dweeb is not an answer}
7. There are 14 punctuation marks in English grammar. Can you name at least half of them?
8. Name the only vegetable or fruit that is never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form except fresh.
9. Name 6 or more things that you can wear on your feet beginning with the letter 'S.'
ANSWERS BELOW....... Answers To Quiz:
1. The one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends: Boxing
2. North American landmark constantly moving backward. Niagara Falls. The rim is worn down about two and a half feet each year because of the millions of gallons of water that rush over it every minute.
3. Only two vegetables that can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons: Asparagus and rhubarb.
4. The fruit with its seeds on the outside: Strawberry.
5. How did the pear get inside the brandy bottle? It grew inside the bottle. The bottles are placed over pear buds when they are small, and are wired in place on the tree. The bottle is left in place for the entire growing season. When the pears are ripe, they are snipped off at the stems.
6. Three English words beginning with dw: dwarf, dwell and dwindle.
7. Fourteen punctuation marks in English grammar. Period, comma, colon, semicolon, dash, hyphen, apostrophe, question mark, exclamation point, quotation mark, brackets, parenthesis, braces, and ellipses.
8. The only vegetable or fruit never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form but fresh: Lettuce
9. Six or more things you can wear on your feet beginning with 'S': Shoes, socks, sandals, sneakers, slippers, skis, skates, snowshoes, stockings, stilts.
"The e-mail Bag"
Two boys were walking home from Sunday school after hearing a strong preaching on the devil.
One said to the other, 'What do you think about all this Satan stuff?'
The other boy replied, 'Well, you know how Santa Claus turned out. It's probably just your Dad.'
You don't stop laughing because you grow old.
You grow old because you stop laughing!
Take heed and pass these along to people who need a laugh.
I thought you would enjoy this....times are tough right now...for all of us...so we need something to make the day a happy place.
"They" haven't found a way to tax you for laughing yet.
"Daily Motivations"
The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things. -- Plato
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see." (Hebrews 11:1)
We commonly speak of faithfulness as loyalty or allegiance. But as you look deeper at this word, you see the root word in faithfulness is "faith." Spiritually, the word means being full of faith. If you read chapter 11 in Hebrews, you will see a thread running through it: "By faith." Hebrews lists great deeds of faith by the ancient patriarchs.
Hebrews chapter 11 says, Noah, "built an ark to save his family from the flood. He obeyed God, who warned him about something that had never happened before." Later, Hebrews says, "It was by faith that Sarah together with Abraham was able to have a child, even though they were too old and Sarah was barren. Abraham believed that God would keep His promise..." to provide an heir because he considered God faithful.
The most serious challenge to Abraham's trust came when God asked him to sacrifice his own son. Strengthened by his prior experiences with God's faithfulness to His promises, Abraham bound Isaac and placed him on an altar, lifting the knife. That is when God provided the ram in the thicket as a substitute for Isaac. Abraham believed that when God said that He would provide a physical line through Isaac, God would fulfill that promise---even if it meant raising Isaac from the dead.
In the experience of the patriarchs, God did not exist in a vacuum. Their faith flowered into heroic deeds because they trusted in an absolutely faithful God. Their God was faithful down to the smallest detail.
"The Patriot Post"
"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." -- James Madison (likely), Federalist No. 62
"Why do we need President Obama's big-bang health-care reform at all? What's the real agenda here? If it's really to cover the truly uninsured, a much cheaper, targeted, small-ball approach would do the trick. But on the other hand, maybe the real goal is a larger, ultra-liberal plan aimed at a government takeover of the U.S. health system. ... According to the U.S. Census Bureau, we don't have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take out college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who choose not to sign up for a health-care plan, roughly 20 million people are removed from the list of uninsured. After that, you can remove the 10 million who are not U.S. citizens and the 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but for some reason have not signed up for those programs. So that leaves only 10 million to 15 million people among the long-term uninsured. Yes, they need help. And yes, they should get it. But not with mandatory universal coverage, or new government-backed insurance plans, or massive tax increases. And certainly not with the Canadian-European-style nationalization that has always been the true goal of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats. Instead, we can give the truly uninsured vouchers or debit cards that will allow for choice and coverage, and even health savings accounts for retirement wealth. ... Knocking down profits and telling people what to do because government planners know best, right? Wrong.. Absolutely wrong." -- economist Lawrence Kudlow
"The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less." --Ronald Reagan
INSIGHT
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution -- or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement." -- novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
LIBERTY
"I am in awe at what our military has accomplished in Iraq despite having most of the public and the vast majority of the media totally abandon them. In my view, what has been accomplished there, against all odds, is perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of our military and perhaps any volunteer force in modern times. I certainly love my country, but what it is that inspires men and women to volunteer for military service when the benefits are so sparse and the burdens so great is beyond my comprehension. We are all incredibly lucky to live in a nation that, despite all of its faults, still have enough courageous young people to serve it in ways that allow 'chicken hawks' (as the Left loves to describe conservative commentators who never served in the military) to worry about things that in comparison don't seem all that significant. Thank you for all you do for us. I wish we appreciated you in a way that was nearly as significant as what you deserve." -- radio talk-show host John Ziegler
OPINION IN BRIEF
"The anti-government protests in Iran following the government's rigged elections are doubtless a little more than the 'robust debate' among Iranians that President Barack Obama welcomed during the election. Some of the debaters have been shot dead. Others have been hustled off to jail. I wonder whether this is an eye-opener for our novice president. .... Yet my question remains: Has our sententious new president learned anything from the unforeseen violent culmination of the Iranian elections? Frankly, I doubt it. He reminds me so much of our most recent sanctimonious pontificator, President Jimmy Carter, who at first attempted to end the Cold War by lecturing Americans against their 'inordinate fear of communism.' Then the Soviets became more aggressive. Finally, Carter began the military buildup for which his successor took justifiable credit. President Ronald Reagan knew the value of a strong military in support of resolute diplomacy. Neither Carter nor Obama has any sense of the linkage of the two, and now it looks as if the Obama administration is going to cut back on our military, even as the dangers to world peace grow. At the heart of our new president is, it seems to me, ambivalence. Within him exist opposite attitudes. What we have seen during the protests in Iran is not a clear sense of geopolitics, but uncertainty. President Obama has not had a clue as to what to do. ... Let the mainstream media purr on about this president's mastery of government. My sense is that he is out of his depth. His dithering over the Iranian protests is but one bloody example." -- R. Emmett Tyrrell
RE: THE LEFT
"President Barack Obama came into office apparently believing that his non-traditional background, charisma and good intentions could placate dictators hostile to America and ease global tensions. ... But so far the world's thugs do not seem to appreciate that new goodwill. ... Obama's confusion about the world's bad actors suggests that he needs a general refresher course in the world of thugs. ... Being anti-American and mouthing tired charges about imperialism, colonialism or capitalism do not make a thug authentic or populist. By definition, thugs acquire power illegitimately. They keep it unlawfully. And they exercise it illegally -- regardless of their professed concern for the 'people' or their gripes against America. Thugs are thugs, and they come in all ideologies, colors and religions -- from Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to North Korea's Kim Jong-il to the late Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia. ... Most of the world's problems are caused by a handful of thugs. Any time one can be isolated and replaced by a consensual government, the world gets just a bit safer. ... So, Mr. President, do not talk to a thug unless you absolutely have to. Do not apologize to -- or put our trust in -- one. And whenever people rise up against a thug, speak out immediately and forcefully on their behalf -- and let the thug, not America, worry about the consequences of the spread of freedom." -- Hoover Institution historian Victor Davis Hanson
"AFA"
Senate ready to vote on 'hate crimes' bill
Call your senator in your own state. Ask your senator to vote "NO" on "Hate Crimes". - oyh
Urgent: Call your senators today to oppose any form of hate crimes legislation
July 15, 2009
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147485907
We have confirmation that a vote on the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes bill (S.909) will happen this week. It is likely that the bill will be introduced as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. If the Senate approves the Hate Crimes amendment, President Obama will sign it into law.
The Hate Crimes legislation would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Even more troubling is that S.909 could create special protections for pedophiles. Democrats voted down an amendment to the bill that would have excluded pedophilia and other "sexual orientations" from the definition of "sexual orientation."
For years, AFA and other pro-family groups have issued warnings about federal Hate Crimes legislation. The reality is that the purpose of this bill is to silence those who speak out against homosexuality. If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.
Take Action!
Click here to get the direct telephone number for your two senators,
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/callalert/index.tt?alertid=13736111
along with suggested talking points for your call. Call your senators today to demand politely, but firmly, that they vote against any attempt on passage of Hate Crimes legislation. Congress has refused to define the term "sexual orientation," which means that all sexual orientations are protected.
Pastors, it is time to take a stand. Share this information with your members, and ask them to call.
"WND"
A Free Press For A Free People
Obama's birthday is 19 days away
Send him a postcard to remind him why that date is important to all of us
Aug. 4 is an important date to Barack Obama and an important date for all Americans.
Though he has never released a long-form birth certificate, Obama claims to have been born Aug. 4, 1961, in an unnamed Honolulu hospital that has yet to take credit for the historic birth of the baby who would become America's first black president.
WND's SuperStore has designed and printed postcards for the occasion. The front of the card raises the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The back is open for your personalized greetings.
"I'm encouraging Americans to send these postcards in plenty of time for Barack Obama's birthday," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND and someone who has made it his personal mission to find that missing birth certificate. "This is an opportunity to anyone to send two messages at once to Obama – one concerning the search for truth about his constitutional eligibility for office and the second your own personalized note."
Farah points out the postcards can be used to send notes to anyone – not just Barack Obama.
"These postcards are not pre-addressed to the White House," he said. "They are postcards that can be used to send to your friends, your member of Congress, your relatives. It's just another way of keeping the issue of eligibility on the front burner – right up through 2012 if necessary."
It's just the latest effort by Farah to raise the visibility of an issue he says was ignored by his colleagues in the media and most of the nation's elected officials, including Republicans.
"The Web"
Here it is... Your House Democrats National Health Care - oyh
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/15/753671/-BREAKING:-New-Right-Wing-Anti-Health-Care-Board-Game!
Honesty at Last!At Sotomayor's hearing, the abortion protestors are the only ones telling the truth.
By Dahlia Lithwick
See Slate's complete coverage of Sonia Sotomayor.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222842/
Sonia Sotomayor
Anyone who believes these confirmation hearings represent much beyond empty political theater should consider how meaningful these proceedings can really be when the only people speaking the truth are being systematically tackled and dragged screaming from the room. I am speaking of the abortion protestors, the fifth of which was hauled out today, shouting that Sen. Pat Leahy needs to go to confession. Each time it happens, the journalists look anxious, the nominee gets flustered, and Leahy unspools his Senate-decorum speech. But amid the half-truths and fantasies and dog whistles that compose the bulk of these hearings, I actually find the protesters quite refreshing.
Consider, for example, the questioning about Judge Sotomayor's judicial record. There isn't much of it. That's partly because the Republicans think her record tells us nothing about her, since her speeches (or, rather, a single line in one speech) reveal her true judicial temperament. But even when Sotomayor is being questioned about her judicial record, the focus isn't on her legal approach or process but on the outcomes. So when she talks about her Ricci decision, Jeff Sessions asks her why she didn't apply affirmative action precedents that had no bearing in a case that was not an affirmative action case. When she speaks about Didden, her eminent domain case, Republican Chuck Grassley asks why she didn't analyze the Kelo precedent in a case about timely filing. Nobody wants to hear how she got to a result. They want to know why she didn't get to their result. Time and again she is hectored for deciding the narrow issues before her. It's like a judicial-activism pep rally in here.
Senate Democrats are almost as confused. About half of them insist that she is a narrow, mechanical, pro-prosecution judge—the perfectly neutral umpire, John Roberts in sensible pumps. The other half utterly reject the balls-and-strikes talk, saying she's empathetic, dammit, and that's a good thing. Consider Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who said in his opening statement yesterday: "If your wide experience brings life to a sense of the difficult circumstances faced by the less powerful among us—the woman shunted around the bank from voicemail to voicemail as she tries to avoid foreclosure for her family; the family struggling to get by in the neighborhood where the police only come with raid jackets on; the couple up late at the kitchen table after the kids are in bed sweating out how to make ends meet that month; the man who believes a little differently, or looks a little different, or thinks things should be different—if you have empathy for those people in this job, you are doing nothing wrong." As Doug Kendall observed this morning, Democrats need to pick a horse and ride it. The alternative is Judge Sotomayor offering up a vision of herself as the world's most empathetic umpire, someone who feels deeply for everyone before coldly finding the objectively correct legal answer.
Which brings us to the nominee. She dodges, hedges, and evades her way through softball and hardball questions alike. But at least that was to be expected. She never once loses her temper today, smiling graciously whether she is praised or insulted and enduring all the crosstalk and double-talk without once looking annoyed.
Today's award for falsity goes to Sen. Lindsey Graham, who manages to both insult and patronize the nominee while promising in his sweet, porch-swing accent that he "likes her." He tells her, "There are many positive things about you, and these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad, and I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. It's hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem?" Judge Sotomayor replies, "No, sir," looking ready to be sent to the naughty chair, where he more or less sends her just a moment later when he lectures that "these hearings are time for self-reflection." As Adam Serwer wrote today, "That's just not a tone of voice you using when speaking to an adult."
Sen. Graham says with a straight face today that "when it comes to the idea that we should consciously try to include more people in the legal process and the judicial process, from different backgrounds, count me in." He says that just as he is asking a female Latina judge whether she is a bully/racist/sexist. He somehow feels that Sotomayor wants to take the law away from him and give it away to other, different people. And in that he seems to suffer from the same false assumption Eugene Robinson pointed to in his brilliant column today: "that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any 'identity'—black, brown, female, gay, whatever—has to be judged against this supposedly 'objective' standard." Sen. Graham would never have lectured Justices Roberts or Scalia about being bullies, because he thinks it's perfectly normal when men ask tough questions. He can't even see the irony in saying he welcomes wise Latina women—so long as they don't change a thing.
The reason I like the abortion protestors so much is that they come into the hearing room all stealthy and then yell precisely what they feel. It's true, everyone in the press corps now watches each new crop of civilian spectators like hawks as they rotate in; we're all wondering which sweet-faced person will erupt in a torrent of hate and rage and get dragged away. The protesters are, in a way, the mirror image of the nominee who must nod and smile sympathetically as she is insulted and second-guessed. But we'll never know what she's really thinking or even what the senators are really thinking. We all just smile and talk.
AP Video: Sotomayor Defends Firefighter Ruling
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
A Manual for Defeating the Gay Agenda
By Staff
http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/News_1/A_Manual_for_Defeating_the_Gay_Agenda.shtml
The war on marriage and the family is carried out on many fronts, with many commanders, each with a well-thought out strategy and plan of attack. Up to now, pro-family activists have lacked the most important information of all, a way to fight back based on a clear insight into the thinking and planning of the other side. Dr. Scott Lively, a prominent figure in the pro-family movement, has written a handbook "Redeeming the Rainbow" that lays out the strategy for defeating the homosexual agenda.
Dr. Lively's credentials are impressive. In addition to having a law degree, he has a Certificate in Human Rights from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. Like any good handbook, "Redeeming the Rainbow" pulls together the most useful information, then deals which each topic in depth. Dr. Lively's discussion of the origin of the homosexual rights movement is thought-provoking. No other source outside the homosexual rights movement contains as much useful material on the origins and ideology of the movement.
The section on psychological techniques used by homosexual rights activists to sway public opinion, and even bring some liberal churches over to their side, is must reading. Especially useful is the documentation Dr. Lively provides which exposes the tactics used to normalize homosexuality in the minds of the American people. Marshall Kirk's seven-point plan to change the way America thinks about homosexuality is included, as is the disturbing "Homosexual Manifesto." The Executive Director of the Maine Family Policy Council, Michael S. Heath, has also written an excellent column on the same subject.
Another virtue of "Redeeming the Rainbow" is that it is a resource on the ethics of homosexuality and a gold mine of authoritative quotes from Christian theologians on the subject. One vexing problem in the debate over homosexual rights is the notion that Christianity is neutral on the issue of homosexuality. Dr. Lively has added numerous quotes to shoot down this argument. Little known passages from the early Church Fathers, and theologians all the way up to John Calvin are included. Anyone who engages in the public debate over homosexual rights and same sex marriage is sure to find ammunition in this substantial and illuminating work.
After thoroughly analyzing the strategies used by homosexual activists to successfully implement their plan, Dr. Lively devotes an extensive section on the way each of us can fight back locally and nationally, both on an individual and organizational basis.
Dr. Lively's book is available free in pdf format, and we urge those who need a comprehensive resource in the debate over homosexual rights and same sex marriage to download a copy.
In commenting on Dr. Lively's new book, Mike Heath said, "Scott is a brave man who has important insights regarding what is going on culturally and morally in New England. He backs up his words with actions. Everyone should read this book."
Richard Viguerie: All Issues at Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Boil Down To One
http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/307
(Manassas, Virginia) The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, concerning the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
"Some Republican senators are finally hinting at the one issue that could dominate and make uniquely historic the Sotomayor hearings. As longtime Chicago-way Obama advisor David Axelrod said in a May 26, 2009 interview, the President nominated Sotomayor because 'he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his,' which was to 'adapt' - meaning change - 'constitutional principles and law.'
"That is a shocking admission of Obama's views, which go beyond judicial activism and undermine our constitutional structure based in separation of limited, enumerated powers.
"Judge Sotomayor's rulings, whether dealing with the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, private property rights, criminal law, use of foreign law, race, equal protection, and other areas of law, demonstrate that she is consistently 'empathetic' in favor of government power.
"In her speeches, Sotomayor has said policy is made by the courts, which affirms her view shared with Obama that judges may and should make law. That, however, usurps the powers of the people's elected representatives.
"All senators have a serious, constitutional obligation to the American people to explore in great detail such a dangerous and radical view of judicial power, especially for Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.
"President Obama is a statist. The real debate is no longer whether he is a socialist, but whether his ideology is authoritarian. The views of judicial power shared by Obama and Sotomayor are inconsistent with the Constitution itself, and that should disqualify this nominee for the highest and in some cases last forum to protect individual rights and prevent authoritarian government, which America's founders feared.
"These hearings are an opportunity for Republicans to define Obama, which they and John McCain's campaign failed to do in the 2008 election."
THE BIRTH OF THE SONG "PRECIOUS LORD"
http://www.frontiernet.net/~j_m_hoover/17.html
Back in 1932 I was 32 years old and a fairly new husband. My wife, Nettie, and I were living in a little apartment on Chicago's Southside. One hot August afternoon I had to go to St. Louis, where I was to be the featured soloist at a large revival meeting.
I didn't want to go. Nettie was in the last month of pregnancy with our first child. But a lot of people were expecting me in St. Louis. I kissed Nettie good-bye, clattered downstairs to our Model A and, in a fresh Lake Michigan breeze, chugged out of Chicago on Route 66.
However, outside the city, I discovered that in my anxiety at leaving, I had forgotten my music case. I wheeled around and headed back. I found Nettie sleeping peacefully. I hesitated by her bed; something was strongly telling me to stay. But eager to get on my way, and not wanting to disturb Nettie, I shrugged off the feeling and quietly slipped out of the room with my music.
The next night, in the steaming St. Louis heat, the crowd called on me to sing again and again. When I finally sat down, a messenger boy ran up with a Western Union telegram. I ripped open the envelope.
Pasted on the yellow sheet were the words: YOUR WIFE JUST DIED.
People were happily singing and clapping around me, but I could hardly keep from crying out. I rushed to a phone and called home. All I could hear on the other end was "Nettie is dead. Nettie is dead."
When I got back, I learned that Nettie had given birth to a boy. I swung between grief and joy. Yet that night, the baby died. I buried Nettie and our little boy together, in the same casket. Then I fell apart.
For days I closeted myself. I felt that God had done me an injustice. I didn't want to serve Him anymore or write gospel songs. I just wanted to go back to that jazz world I once knew so well. But then, as I hunched alone in that dark apartment those first sad days, I thought back to the afternoon I went to St. Louis. Something kept telling me to stay with Nettie.
Was that something God? Oh, if I had paid more attention to Him that day, I would have stayed and been with Nettie when she died. From that moment on I vowed to listen more closely to Him. But still I was lost in grief.
Everyone was kind to me, especially a friend, Professor Fry, who seemed to know what I needed. On the following Saturday evening he took me up to Malone's Poro College, a neighborhood music school. It was quiet; the late evening sun crept through the curtained windows. I sat down at the piano, and my hands began to browse over the keys. Something happened to me then. I felt at peace. I felt as though I could reach out and touch God. I found myself playing a melody, one into my head-they just seemed to fall into place:
Precious Lord, take my hand, lead me on, let me stand! I am tired,
I am weak, I am worn. Through the storm, through the night lead
me on to the light, Take my hand, precious Lord. Lead me home.
As the Lord gave me these words and melody, He also healed my spirit.
I learned that when we are in our deepest grief, when we feel farthest
from God, this is when He is closest, and when we are most open to His
restoring power. And so I go on living for God willingly and joyfully,
until that day comes when He will take me and gently lead me home.
-Tommy Dorsey
Quiz for People Who Know Everything
This is a quiz for people who know everything! I found out in a hurry that I didn't.
These are not trick questions. They are straight questions with straight answers.
1. Name the one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends.
2. What famous North American landmark is constantly moving backward?
3. Of all vegetables, only two can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons. All other vegetables must be replanted every year.. What are the only two perennial
vegetables?
4. What fruit has its seeds on the outside?
5. In many liquor stores, you can buy pear brandy, with a real pear inside the bottle. The pear is whole and ripe, and the bottle is genuine; it hasn't been cut in any way. How did the pear get inside the bottle?
6. Only three words in standard English begin with the letters 'dw' and they are all common words. Name two of them. {dweeb is not an answer}
7. There are 14 punctuation marks in English grammar. Can you name at least half of them?
8. Name the only vegetable or fruit that is never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form except fresh.
9. Name 6 or more things that you can wear on your feet beginning with the letter 'S.'
ANSWERS BELOW....... Answers To Quiz:
1. The one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends: Boxing
2. North American landmark constantly moving backward. Niagara Falls. The rim is worn down about two and a half feet each year because of the millions of gallons of water that rush over it every minute.
3. Only two vegetables that can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons: Asparagus and rhubarb.
4. The fruit with its seeds on the outside: Strawberry.
5. How did the pear get inside the brandy bottle? It grew inside the bottle. The bottles are placed over pear buds when they are small, and are wired in place on the tree. The bottle is left in place for the entire growing season. When the pears are ripe, they are snipped off at the stems.
6. Three English words beginning with dw: dwarf, dwell and dwindle.
7. Fourteen punctuation marks in English grammar. Period, comma, colon, semicolon, dash, hyphen, apostrophe, question mark, exclamation point, quotation mark, brackets, parenthesis, braces, and ellipses.
8. The only vegetable or fruit never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form but fresh: Lettuce
9. Six or more things you can wear on your feet beginning with 'S': Shoes, socks, sandals, sneakers, slippers, skis, skates, snowshoes, stockings, stilts.
"The e-mail Bag"
Two boys were walking home from Sunday school after hearing a strong preaching on the devil.
One said to the other, 'What do you think about all this Satan stuff?'
The other boy replied, 'Well, you know how Santa Claus turned out. It's probably just your Dad.'
You don't stop laughing because you grow old.
You grow old because you stop laughing!
Take heed and pass these along to people who need a laugh.
I thought you would enjoy this....times are tough right now...for all of us...so we need something to make the day a happy place.
"They" haven't found a way to tax you for laughing yet.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090715
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
I can change only myself, but sometimes that is enough. -- Ruth Humlecker
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in us:... patience..." (Galatians 5:22)
My good friend and spiritual mentor from many years ago, Dr. Henrietta Mears, firmly believed as a young woman that God would call her to go overseas as a missionary. But she was not blessed with good eyesight, which she recognized would be an obstacle to her service overseas. In time she realized God was not calling her into missions.
Ultimately Dr. Mears became the Director of Christian Education at the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, California. From that position she had a global impact. She certainly had a tremendous influence on Vonette and me, as well as Richard Halverson (who would become Chaplain of the United States Senate), Billy Graham, and thousands of others.
She founded Gospel Light Publications and Forrest Home Christian Conference Center, where hundreds of thousands experienced new life in Christ. But she had to be patient and obedient as God worked out His perfect will for her.
Step by step, God lays out His special plan for each of us. In His perfect time, God shows us what He wants us to see. We may be interested in the details of the plan, but He is always interested in the details of the relationship as we depend on Him daily. In our souls we may be saying, "Just tell me, Lord! I cannot wait---I want to know now!" But the gentle voice of the Spirit replies, Be patient. Know Me well, and the future will take care of itself, if you will simply trust Me.
"The Patriot Post"
"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." -- Thomas Jefferson
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"Why would [a government plan] drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical." -- President Barack Obama
Hope 'n' Change: Welfare Roles Grow Despite 'Stimulus'
For the first time since President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-propelled welfare reform legislation in 1994, welfare numbers are rising in more than half of states nationwide, with increases climbing as high as 27 percent in Oregon, 23 percent in South Carolina, 14 percent in Florida and 10 percent in California.
Second Amendment: Philadelphia and DC
A Pennsylvania court invalidated two of Philadelphia's most recent gun-control provisions last week, but upheld three others. The two struck down were a ban on semi-automatic rifles and straw purchases of handguns. The three upheld require the report of lost or stolen handguns, a bar on gun ownership for those who are subject to "protections from abuse" orders, and permitting the temporary seizure of guns by police. The reporting provision is currently the only one in effect. In striking down the two bans, the Commonwealth Court determined that a 1996 ruling by the state Supreme Court meant that only the state legislature, not municipalities, can enact such gun legislation.
In Washington, DC, the city council expanded the list of approved handguns that residents can own in an effort to counter another lawsuit over its continued violation of the Second Amendment. A suit was filed in March over the restrictions, but more than 1,000 types and models have since been added to the approved list. Still, while DC residents are permitted to exercise their right to keep arms, they cannot bear them outside their own homes. And the District thinks that isn't infringement.
And Last...
The AFL-CIO apparently has gotten so lazy over the years that they've begun outsourcing their protests and shipping American jobs overseas. Lobbying congressmen on Capitol Hill for passage of the grossly misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act," union folks were passing out cardboard hammers with a union message and yellow plastic hard hats complete with a "Made in China" sticker on the inside. Spokesman Eddie Vale said, "Obviously our policy is to only use union vendors and it was a mistake by a new staffer who ordered them and unfortunately wasn't caught before they went out." Right, blame the "new staffer." No doubt another job "created or saved" by Barack Obama. Keep up the good, er, work, Eddie.
"FRC" (Family Research Council)
Senate poised to vote at any time on "hate crimes" legislation
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147484834
Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians
For more visit www.FRC.org
While the Scriptures teach that both actions and attitudes are sinful (see Matt. 5:21-22), only our outward actions are punishable by law. In fact, Exodus 21-22 contains scores of laws and punishments against outward actions committed against others. However, no mention is made of the inward attitudes associated with those crimes.
Logic would suggest that violent crimes are inherently acts of “hate.” But the new category of law known as “hate crimes” involves punishing people not only for an outward act of violence, but also for the personal opinions which are thought to have motivated the crime. Homosexual activists and their allies in Congress are now pushing for a law (HR 1913/S 909) that would allow federal prosecution of any crimes allegedly motivated by bias, including bias against the victim's actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The latest federal hate crimes legislation says it only authorizes prosecution of those who cause or attempt to cause “bodily injury.”However, since violent crimes are already illegal, the “hate” label and federal intervention would be based on politically incorrect thoughts alone.
The truth is that wherever hate crimes laws have been adopted, there is an inevitable move to drop the requirement that there be an associated act of violence. In such cases, these laws have evolved to target what is regarded as hate speech and expression. What you say could literally land you in jail. According to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, hate crimes legislation could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Here’s how: Currently, every state has laws that prohibit conspiracy to commit a crime. Linked to hate crimes, preaching or teaching against homosexual conduct could be prosecuted as conspiracy to commit a hate crime.
For instance, a minister who preaches from Genesis 19 or Romans 1, referencing the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, could be heard by an individual who applies it in a way prohibited by a hate crimes law. Not only would the offender be prosecuted under this law, but also the minister could be prosecuted for conspiracy.
Hate crimes laws would radically impact our freedom of speech!
Hate Crimes Action Alert
For more visit www.FRC.org
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009: HR 1913 has passed the House, so the battle moves on to the Senate. The current Senate plan is to ammend Hate Crimes to an authorization bill to try to sneek it through. However, Christians all across the nation can make an impact on the outcome
Hate Crimes Action Steps:
1. Pray for National Awareness – While it might sound good on the surface (nobody is for hate crimes), this hate crimes law would be disastrous for our freedoms. Hate crimes legislation would:
• Create a special class based on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."
• Establish a two-tiered system of justice where people are given one penalty for their actions and additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.
• Jeopardize the Constitutional rights of pastors and religious individuals to peacefully and publicly disagree on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.
2. Stay Informed – Sign up for the Washington Update at www.FRC.org and order a video copy of Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and SilencingChristians at www.FightHateCrimes.com.
3. Take Action – Some things you can do now:
1. Contact your Senators at (202) 224-3121 or www.FRC.org and tell them you are against Hate Crimes because of the threats to our Constitutional freedom of speech and religion.
2. Urge those who refuse to budge on hate crimes expansion to at least add a clear and a broadbased exemption sufficient to protect religious speech.
3. Share this message with four friends.
“I have a responsibility... to let people know that the way they live is wrong…. And... declare that if they turn around and follow Christ they will not come under judgment.” - Pastor Åke Green
Pastor Åke Green was sentenced on June 29, 2004 to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals in a sermon delivered in Borgholm, Sweden on July 20, 2003.
"ACU"
Obama and the Liberals don't want you or the American people to know what they are doing this summer.
While Americans are in the heat of summer, enjoying vacations with family and visits with the grandkids - Obama and the liberals within Washington are working to push government-run health care as fast as they can before the American people really know what is going on.
They want to catch us sleeping, they want us distracted. They think they can get away with it. They snuck through the stimulus and auto bailouts. That is why they want to pass a so-called health care reform bill before the August recess. They are using America's desire for some reform to force moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for a government-run "option" for health care.
As you will see in a video we made with Congressman and long-time medical Doctor Phil Roe (R-TN) recorded in his office just last Friday, this is part of the liberal's attempts to have government take over and control your health care. To view the video go here: http://www.conservative.org/DRPhilRoeHealthCare.html
We need to send a message now - right now - that American's don't need government-run health care.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Before you sit there and think that we cannot have an impact - or that our work against the all out liberal assault coming from Congress is falling on deaf ears - consider this. Recently the Cap and Trade Energy Tax vote in the House was so close and so controversial, because of your voice, the liberal leadership in the Senate has put off acting on it anytime soon.
We can do the same here and now, we can help put the brakes on this attempt to have government takeover health care, now, today!
Look at these News headlines and stories:
"Health care reform proponents are growing pessimistic that they can meet President Barack Obama's August target for passing a bill." (POLITICO newspaper today)
The AP reported, "Officials push for health care despite delay," stating that Obama and Pelosi have hit a roadblock but they are not giving up. (Associated Press)
"President Barack Obama, after a week of diplomacy abroad, now faces the possible derailment of his top priority at home, the overhaul of the health-care system." (Bloomberg News)
We can do it. We can fight back and win. We can stop a liberal attempt to take over Health Care!
We know that the governments will only make health care worse, not better. Conservatives stopped the ill-conceived "Hillary Care" plan in the 1990s, let's fight back again together now!
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
In the video with Congressman and Dr. Roe at
http://www.conservative.org/DRPhilRoeHealthCare.html he talks about all of the medical innovations we have seen in our nation.
Congressman and Dr. Roe also says our system is already better than that in Canada or England. Why would we copy a European-style system that doesn't deliver better care?
Why? ... Because the liberals just want bigger government and more control over your lives.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
In our video Dr. Roe notes a "public option," as Obama and Pelosi call it, is merely nice language to disguise a government takeover plan. This so-called health care reform plan will only provide coverage to a very, very small percent of the American population but it is estimated to cost more than $1 Trillion in taxpayer money.
Congressman Roe points out small businesses will drop health coverage first, then larger businesses. Soon everyone will be in government-run health care.
As a colleague here at ACU said, if you enjoy waiting in line at the state DMV office to get a driver's license, just think about visiting a doctor in a government-run health care system.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Politico said today, "House Democrat leaders still hope to approve a robust new network of government-sponsored health care this year." However, moderate Democrats are starting to buck their liberal Democrat leadership.
Moderate Democrats are beginning to join Republicans in demanding that small business owners not be forced to provide coverage or pay into the government's plan (up to $750 per employee) - which is Obama's real goal. These more moderate Members met with Pelosi last week in what was called a rather tough meeting. Let's show them some support.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi hope that Americans will go about their lives this summer and that they can sneak this into law. Let's prove them wrong.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
There are many things happening on Capitol Hill this week. But this week, this issue is also important.
Please talk to your family and friends about this issue and help us send a message today.
Sincerely,
Dennis Whitfield
Executive Vice President
P.S. Last Thursday several reports came out about the massive tax increases needed to fund a government-run health care option. We all know that liberals estimate low. These tax increases could be absolutely huge when fully implemented. Don't allow them to harm our health care system and tax us into a full depression.
"The Web"
Obama snubbed in Moscow (video)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_snubbed_in_moscow_video.html
BORN IN THE USA?
Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up
Spokesman belittles WND reporter, asks 'what reporting' has been done
Joe Kovacs and Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103898
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs did not confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi'olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today refused to confirm that a letter posted by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu – purportedly from President Obama claiming the facility as his birthplace – is, in fact, real.
The issue arose today when Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked Gibbs about the letter, which the hospital also used in a magazine fundraising article.
However, when WND reported on the posted images and questioned their authenticity, the hospital concealed the online image, and then refused to confirm the letter even exists.
Gibbs' answer came in response to Kinsolving's question, which begins at the 55:27 mark into the video recorded by C-SPAN:
While you and the president were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature "Barack Obama," which stated, "The place of my birth was Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center." And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi'olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm?
Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website and used for fundraising before electronically hidden once WND disclosed it was not an actual paper letter, but merely HTML coding. The hospital and White House now refuse to confirm that a real document even exists.
Gibbs said, without responding directly to the question about the veracity of the letter, "Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital."
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
When Kinsolving asked when Gibbs could check, he responded.
"I will seek to interview whoever brought the president into this world. But can we just – I want to do this once and for all, Lester. Let's just do this once and for all. You can go on this – I hope you'll take the time not just to Google 'President, January 24, Hawaii hospital, birth' and come up with this letter, but go on the Internet and get the birth certificate, Lester, and put…"
When Kinsolving pointed out the image posted on various website's was not a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth, but a different "Certification of Live Birth" document, Gibbs said, "I know. Just a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the president was indeed born in the state of Hawaii."
But under Hawaiian law at the time of the president's birth, such documents were available for babies not even born in Hawaii.
Obama states in the purported letter that he was born at Kapi'olani. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website before being electronically hidden once WND publicized it.
Now the hospital refuses to confirm that a real document even exists. But a similar – although not identical – image purporting also to be a letter from Obama claiming Kapi'olani as his birth place appeared in the hospital's Inspire Magazine:
Then Gibbs, amidst a repeating chorus of guffaws and giggles from the White House press corps, started lecturing the WND correspondent, who is among a handful of the most senior correspondents on the White House assignment, about journalism.
"You know, Lester, I – I want to stay on this for a second, Lester, I want to stay on this for a second, because you're a smart man, right?" said Gibbs.
"Hypothetical," said an unidentified reporter.
"All right, all right, settle down in here. Only I get to make jokes like that," said Gibbs.
"Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America. And all of this incredible back-and-forth – I get e-mails today from people who inexplicably can figure out very easily the White House e-mail address, and want proof of where the president was born," Gibbs said.
"Lester, the next time you ask me a question I'm going to ask you what reporting you've done to demonstrate to your listeners the truth, the certificate, the state, so that they can look to you for that momentous search for the truth, and you can wipe away all the dark clouds and provide them with the knowing clarity that comes with that certainty," Gibbs said.
However, WND has reported that a wide range of Obama documentation – along with Obama's birth certificate – are not available, including Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
WND has reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama's birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama's birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.
And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president's supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.
When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility and used that claim as a major fund-raising tool commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.
WND has yet to be able to identify any physician or medical attendant present at Kapi'olani Hospital in 1961 who can recall Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, giving birth to Barack Obama at the hospital or who can identify the name of the attending physician.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
To date, Obama has not revealed his original long-form, hospital-generated "Certificate of Live Birth" that includes details such as the name of the medical facility and the doctor who delivered him.
Here is an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician. Beneath it is the short-form "Certification of Live Birth" offered by Obama as proof of his Hawaiian birth. It is possible to have been born outside of Hawaii and still obtain the latter form, but not the former:
Long-form birth certificate from state of Hawaii (Image courtesy Philip Berg)
Here is the "Certification of Live Birth" presented by Obama:
Short-form "Certification of Live Birth"
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" – challenges that all have been confronted by attorneys acting on the president's behalf to keep his records sealed.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
Among the cases have been several from Democrat Philip Berg, who has alleged that not only is Obama ineligible to be president, he was unqualified to be the senator from Illinois and should be prosecuted under the False Claims Act.
The key question in the dispute also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
They are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Questions for Sotomayor
by Jed Babbin
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32648
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt) is rushing the Supreme Court nomination of Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to its first hearing on Monday.
Since President Obama made the nomination on May 26, we have learned a lot, but not enough, about Sotomayor’s background and performance in her twelve years on the bench, first as a district court judge and then on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
We know that Sotomayor is a self-labeled “affirmative action baby.” She was, as a Princeton undergraduate, already a political activist. She was head of the campus chapter of Acción Puertorriqueña, a Puerto Rican activist group. According to a Washington Post report, in April 1973 she wrote and made a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, accusing “…Princeton of an "institutional pattern of discrimination" in hiring "Puerto Rican and Chicano" faculty, as well as in admitting students from those ethnic groups.”
Her activism continued, apparently up to the moment she was appointed to the bench. She was a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF, now called “Latino Justice”), an activist civil rights group that frequently engaged in litigation and took positions that were far beyond mainstream legal thought in the United States.
Sotomayor has been a federal judge since 1992 and was elevated to the Second Circuit in 1998. Many of her most controversial statements (and all controversial decisions, of course) have been since she took the bench.
We know that she has proclaimed her racial and gender pride repeatedly and -- contrary to the most basic tenets our law and Constitution -- said that she embraces them in rendering her version of justice. And we know that she has been reversed by the Supreme Court in cases that raise serious questions about her judicial temperament.
It’s time to ask tough questions and insist on complete and honest answers.
Here are five questions which Sotomayor should have to answer before her nomination is voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1. PRLDEF’s Positions Outside the Legal Mainstream: For twelve years (1980-1992), Judge Sotomayor served in various legal and policy making roles in the PRLDEF. She was at times a member of their Board of Directors, Vice President, and Chairperson of their Litigation and Education Committees. In 1981, PRLDEF wrote to the Governor of New York that “capital punishment represents ongoing racism within our society.” PRLDEF also took the position that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”
Question for Sotomayor: We know that you played an active role, frequently participating directly in the development of legal positions and strategies for PRLDEF. With respect to the 1981 letter on the death penalty and with respect to the opposition to Roe v. Wade, tell us precisely what your role was in developing each position and how you influenced its development.
2. Embracing Biases, not Facts: The Supreme Court only last month reversed Sotomayor in the New Haven firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano. In the lower court, the judge granted the defendant “summary judgment,” which meant two things. First, what the law (or the Constitution) says on an issue determines which facts are important to the case and which are not. When a court grants summary judgment, it means that there is no real dispute on the important facts, so no jury needs to decide what the facts are and the court can apply the law.
In Ricci, the district court granted summary judgment to the City of New Haven, saying that the important facts were not disputed and, on that basis, the white firefighters alleging that they had been discriminated against had no legal grievance.
Sotomayor (joined by two other judges) sustained the lower court’s decision without comment on the facts or explaining their application of the law.
The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s panel AND granted summary judgment to the firefighters, which means they found -- on the basis of the same facts -- that the firefighters had sustained a legal claim and that the city had no serious factual challenge to it.
In effect, the Supreme Court said that both the lower court and Sotomayor had based their judgments on the wrong set of facts.
In her 2001 Berkeley speech, Sotomayor said, “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
Question for Sotomayor: In reviewing the District Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, how did your gender and Latina heritage affect your choice of the facts on which to judge the case?
3. Second Amendment: In the 2009 decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, an opinion co-authored by Sotomayor, the Second Circuit upheld a law prohibiting the possession of a nunchaku, a martial arts weapon consisting of two wooden or steel rods connected by a rope or chain. Denying the defendant’s claim that his Second Amendment rights were violated, Sotomayor’s opinion said that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.”
Question for Sotomayor: In D.C. v Heller, the Supreme Court wrote that, “As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”…would fail constitutional muster.”
In light of that statement of the Constitutional law, do you believe a state or city which is not a federal entity can ban the possession of handguns?
4. International Law: Sotomayor wrote the foreword to Daniel Terris’ book, “The International Judge” published in 2007. In that foreword, Sotomayor wrote:
A proposed bill in Congress to prohibit the citation of foreign law in federal judicial decisions gave rise in recent years to a heated and extensive dialogue among American judges, academics and commentators on the appropriate role that foreign and international law should play in American constitutional adjudication.
But the question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution is not the only one worth posing. As The International Judge makes clear, we should also question how much we have to learn from international courts and from their male and female judges about the process of judging and the factors outside of the law that affect our decisions.
Questions for Sotomayor:
(a) Specifically how, and to what extent, should international law or foreign law be considered in interpreting the U.S. Constitution?
(b) What can we learn from international courts and their judges about the process of judging?
(c) How shall we differentiate among the male and female judges to learn from them?
(d) And, specifically and most importantly, what factors outside the law should affect your decisions?
5. Does an Unborn Child Have Constitutional Rights? In her interview with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sotomayor said that she had never thought about whether an unborn child has constitutional rights. How is that possible for a judge who has been on the bench since 1992? And how can that be reconciled with the actions of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which Sotomayor served as a prominent member from 1980-1992?
Question for Sotomayor: A child that is born is inarguably a person, and if that person is lucky enough to be born in the United States or come here later, he or she has rights under our Constitution. At some point in the pregnancy -- and we needn’t debate when that occurs in this hearing -- we believe the unborn fetus achieves the Constitutional status of a person, and thus has rights. Without debating when that moment occurs, do you agree that at some point an unborn child has rights under our Constitution?
If Sotomayor is asked those questions, the answers should illuminate for all Americans the answer to the question of her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, or the powerful court on which she now serves.
Teo Molin contributed research and reporting to this article.
Will Dems allow Goldman to manipulate a cap-and-trade market?
By William Tate
Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street leviathan that is heavily invested in the cap-and-trade carbon market scam, has admitted it has developed and used software that can manipulate such financial markets.
The revelation came during proceedings in a legal case with enough plot twists to make even John Grisham proud; it was made, not by Goldman, but by an assistant U.S. Attorney.
"(B)ecause of the way this software interfaces with the various markets and exchanges, the bank has raised a possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways," Joseph Facciponti told a federal magistrate in an unusual Saturday afternoon bail hearing -- and not just any Saturday afternoon, but the Fourth of July.
Facciponti's comments came at a hearing for Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs programmer, who had been arrested the day before, disembarking from a plane at Newark's Liberty International Airport. Aleynikov is accused of absconding with the code for the Goldman program and uploading it to a server in Germany, shortly before leaving the firm to take a job with a Chicago start-up for three times his $400,000 a year Goldman salary.
Aleynikov denies the charges.
Goldman uses the program for all of its trades
While Facciponti's remarks that the Goldman computer program could "manipulate markets in unfair ways" have received attention in the financial press, another, almost equally important statement made by Facciponti has gone virtually unnoticed. According to transcripts of the hearing, as posted at the Wall Street Journal:
"What the defendant is accused of having stolen from the investment bank (later identified by defense counsel as Goldman Sachs) is their proprietary, high-quantity, high-volume trading platform with which they conduct all of their trades in all major markets in the United States and other places." (emphasis added)
In other words, Goldman already uses the software. Implicit in Facciponti's court statements is that Goldman can be trusted not to manipulate markets but others can not.
Even if Goldman hasn't actually rigged markets, the program could be used to give Goldman other unfair advantages; business commentator and author of Bailout Nation Barry Ritholz outlines some possibilities at his blog:
Theoretically, this would allow GS to buy (or sell) stocks, selling (or covering) them back to the now compromised trader towards the end of their purchase (sale). Or, they could take a position, assuming there was more flow behind the initial order. Or, they could arbitrage a few fractional cents each trade.
Coincidentally or not, Bank of America analyst Guy Moszkowski says that Goldman Sachs is on pace this year to beat its trading-revenue record in 2007.
Goldman wouldn't manipulate markets, would they?
But what are we to make of Facciponti's comment that "there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways."
Which leads the inquiring mind to ask, How does Goldman know that its program has that capability?
Goldman, being the good corporate citizens they are, would never have used it that way.
Or would they?
A recent article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone accuses Goldman of manipulating markets to create speculative bubbles, including the internet bubble, last year's crazy ride in oil prices, and the current economic bust initiated by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.
In his thoroughly-researched and well-sourced book, House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street ($27.95 Doubleday), William D. Cohan writes of a crucial moment in that meltdown. He quotes an unnamed Bear executive describing how they were trying to value, or "mark", mortgage-backed securities, a process by which the SEC required that they averaged the highest and lowest marks provided by other firms. The executive said the marks were coming in at 97 or 98 cents on the dollar, when Goldman Sachs pushed the market over the cliff:
"Suddenly we get these marks. Except these marks are not 98 to 97. They go from 98 to 50 and 60... and that is game f****ing over. By the way, the firm that sent us the 50 made a s**t pot full of money in 2007 shorting the f***ing market."
The effect of the new marks from Goldman Sachs .... was immediate and devastating...
With the hindsight of a few months, the Bear executive's fury at Goldman had not abated. "If everybody's getting overwhelmed by a tsunami and a couple of guys are making a f***ing fortune, that usually is grounds for at least taking a closer look to see what is going on, as to why they were making a fortune... I just told you a story that as about as relevant and about as potent as nitroglycerin, if you ask me."
-House of Cards, p 337
And, suddenly, mortgage-backed securities were melting like cheese on a summer picnic's hamburger.
Goldman defended their slashing of subprime securities prices in half, almost overnight, and a Goldman official told Cohan the firm "did not make nearly as much money in 2007 betting against the mortgage market as people think it did."
Just as Goldman's finger may have helped pop the housing bubble, its fingerprints are all over the start of that bubble as well, through its influence on Clinton-era policies.
Economist Dennis Sewell noted in The Spectator magazine:
The main thrust of the Clinton housing strategy was to increase home ownership among the poor, and particularly among blacks and Hispanics... standing in the way of the realisation of this dream were the conservative lending policies of the banks, which required such inconvenient and old-fashioned things as cash deposits and regular repayments - things the poor and minorities often could not provide.
The Clinton administration initiated its strategy through reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act, accounced in December, 1993.
Well-respected analyst Meredith Whitney has noted that home ownership in the U.S. "had been 64% prior to 1994 for as far back as the eye can see." After the new government policies, that rate climbed to 69%. Whitney told Business Week last December that she expects the financial crisis caused by the mortgage meltdown to last through mid-2010 because, "For 15 or 20 years cheap credit was extended to a lot of people who were not worthy. Now you've got to resize that business back to traditional, normalized credit."
Sewell in his Spectator article, wrote that to make sure the new policies were implemented, the administration set up "a network of enforcement offices across the country, manned by attorneys and investigators, and primed to spearhead an assault on the mortgage banks, bringing suits against any suspected of practicing unlawful discrimination, whether on the basis of race, gender or disability."
In other words, the Clinton administration, using the full force and authority of the U.S. government, bullied lenders into making questionable mortgages, accelerating -- if not initiating -- the housing bubble through its CRA reforms.
Goldman Sachs played a major hand in these Clinton-era financial policies through Robert Rubin, former Co-Chairman of the firm, who actually announced them on December 8, 1993. Rubin boasted that, "CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities around the country." (Emphasis added.) Rubin was then Clinton's influential Assistant for Economic Policy and later went on to become an even more influential Secretary of the Treasury.
Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone:
During his (Robert Rubin's) tenure at Treasury, the Clinton White House made a series of moves that would have drastic consequences for the global economy - beginning with Rubin's complete and total failure to regulate his old firm during its first mad dash for obscene short-term profits.
Taibbi adds that other Goldman graduates played a major hand when the market crashed, including another Goldman-ex turned Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson:
Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers -- one of Goldman's last real competitors -- collapse without intervention... The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.
The next bubble?
From the mortgage bubble, Goldman learned an important -- and very valuable -- lesson: Government policies, especially if shaped by a network of former Goldman officials, could be used to create vast profits, indeed whole markets.
This leads us to what Taibbi calls "the new game in town," cap-and-trade. Or cap-and-tax, if you prefer.
It is a potential trillion-dollar market, that had its beginnings in Chicago about the time that Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, even though the U.S. Senate had spurned the international agreement by a 95-0 vote. And Barack Obama has been involved in the potentially lucrative market almost from the start.
The Chicago Climate Exchange was formed to implement the carbon emissions trading gold rush Kyoto would have opened up; however, when President Bush withdrew from the protocol -- forever earning George Soros' enmity -- it looked like the exchange was dead. Enter Chicago's Joyce Foundation, a senior board member of which was one Barack Obama.
From Fox News:
Obama served as one of 12 directors on the Joyce Foundation board from July 1994 until December 2002, according to a Joyce foundation spokesman. But it was only in 2000 and 2001 that the foundation gave money to the Climate Exchange -- funds deemed by the exchange itself to be fundamental to its successful launch, and in fact to its early survival.
Having survived, thanks to the million-dollar bailout from Obama and the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago Climate Exchange went on to merge with Climate Exchange Ltd in 2006. Goldman Sachs took a 10% stake in the firm at the time and later increased its holdings to at least 19%. CCX is also 10% owned by Generation Investment Management, a firm founded and chaired by Al Gore and co-founded by the above-mentioned former Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson.
According to EnergyRisk.com,
"Goldman Sachs is a major trader of European Union allowances and is set to be a key player in the US emissions markets that are planned to start up at the end of the decade."
But the markets have to be created first.
Trading firms sometimes call themselves 'market makers' for creating the markets in which securities and other investments are traded. Goldman learned from the housing bubble that it could forego that risk by getting the U.S. government to take it for them. So, now Goldman is turning to Washington to do its bidding, specifically the Democrats in Congress and the White House that it expects to approve and sign cap-and-trade legislation. Democrats that Goldman has bought and paid for.
Taibbi writes that Goldman personnel -- it's not legal for the corporations, themselves, to make political contributions -- donated nearly four-and-a half million dollars to get Democrats elected last fall. And the Center for Responsive Politics (CPR)'s OpenSecrets.org reports that almost a million of that went to the man who helped keep the Climate Exchange alive back in 2000 and 2001, Barack Obama.
In fact, Goldman was Obama's largest private contributor and "was the biggest business donor to Democrats in 2008, according to a (CPR) report. Some 73 percent of Goldman Sachs's millions in 2006-08 donations went to Democrats," according to a March article by Kevin D. Williamson in National Review.
And Goldman wasn't alone. Sniffing the profits that Wall Street's biggest shark expects to make from the new market, other investment firms, like smaller sharks sniffing blood in the water, went all-in last year, too. According to OpenSecrets, investment and security folks shelled out $14,788,852 to Obama, while hedge fund personnel invested just over three million dollars on their man. Both figures are almost twice the amounts donated to the Republican candidate, John McCain.
Overall investment and financial institution personnel donated $87,965,961 to Democrats, or about 57% of their total donations, a sharp break from years past, when Republicans generally held a slight edge. The numbers are even more lopsided going into next year's congressional election with 66% of the money donated so far going to the cap-and-trade party.
These figures, of course, do not include donations made to certain PACS or 527's or George Soros's relentless efforts to get willing Democrats elected.
Taibbi accuses Goldman of riding from bubble to bubble, sucking all of the public's money it can from each bubble before moving on to the next. With Goldman's push for cap-and-trade, "now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet."
But, of course, Goldman Sachs would never manipulate markets.
Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!
Make a personal reflection about this..... Very interesting, read until the end.....
It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Here are some men and women who mocked God :
John Lennon (Singer):
Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:
"Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but His subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him" (1966).
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.
Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.
Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died .
Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):
During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: "God, that's for you."
He died at the age of 32 of AIDS in a horrible manner.
The man who built the Titanic:
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.
With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it"
The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic .
Marilyn Monroe (Actress)
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need your Jesus".
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment .
Bon Scott (Singer)
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:
"Don't stop me, I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell".
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit . (gross..)
Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....
The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:
"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.."
She responded: "Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here..... It's Already Full "
Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.
The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken .
Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written. In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.
Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus. Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive. Jesus said, "If you are embarrassed about me, I will also be embarrassed about you before my father."
"The e-mail Bag"
A Sunday School teacher asked her class why Joseph and Mary took Jesus with them to Jerusalem . A small child replied, 'They couldn't get a baby-sitter.'
A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds. After explaining the commandment to 'Honor thy father and thy mother,' she asked, 'Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat
our brothers and sisters?' Without missing a beat, one little boy answered, 'Thou shall not kill.'
At Sunday School they were teaching how God created everything, including human beings. Little Johnny seemed especially intent when they told him how Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs. Later in the week his mother noticed him lying down as though he were ill, and she said, 'Johnny, what is the matter?' Little Johnny responded, 'I have pain in my side.. I think I'm going to have a wife.'
"Daily Motivations"
I can change only myself, but sometimes that is enough. -- Ruth Humlecker
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in us:... patience..." (Galatians 5:22)
My good friend and spiritual mentor from many years ago, Dr. Henrietta Mears, firmly believed as a young woman that God would call her to go overseas as a missionary. But she was not blessed with good eyesight, which she recognized would be an obstacle to her service overseas. In time she realized God was not calling her into missions.
Ultimately Dr. Mears became the Director of Christian Education at the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, California. From that position she had a global impact. She certainly had a tremendous influence on Vonette and me, as well as Richard Halverson (who would become Chaplain of the United States Senate), Billy Graham, and thousands of others.
She founded Gospel Light Publications and Forrest Home Christian Conference Center, where hundreds of thousands experienced new life in Christ. But she had to be patient and obedient as God worked out His perfect will for her.
Step by step, God lays out His special plan for each of us. In His perfect time, God shows us what He wants us to see. We may be interested in the details of the plan, but He is always interested in the details of the relationship as we depend on Him daily. In our souls we may be saying, "Just tell me, Lord! I cannot wait---I want to know now!" But the gentle voice of the Spirit replies, Be patient. Know Me well, and the future will take care of itself, if you will simply trust Me.
"The Patriot Post"
"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." -- Thomas Jefferson
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"Why would [a government plan] drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical." -- President Barack Obama
Hope 'n' Change: Welfare Roles Grow Despite 'Stimulus'
For the first time since President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-propelled welfare reform legislation in 1994, welfare numbers are rising in more than half of states nationwide, with increases climbing as high as 27 percent in Oregon, 23 percent in South Carolina, 14 percent in Florida and 10 percent in California.
Second Amendment: Philadelphia and DC
A Pennsylvania court invalidated two of Philadelphia's most recent gun-control provisions last week, but upheld three others. The two struck down were a ban on semi-automatic rifles and straw purchases of handguns. The three upheld require the report of lost or stolen handguns, a bar on gun ownership for those who are subject to "protections from abuse" orders, and permitting the temporary seizure of guns by police. The reporting provision is currently the only one in effect. In striking down the two bans, the Commonwealth Court determined that a 1996 ruling by the state Supreme Court meant that only the state legislature, not municipalities, can enact such gun legislation.
In Washington, DC, the city council expanded the list of approved handguns that residents can own in an effort to counter another lawsuit over its continued violation of the Second Amendment. A suit was filed in March over the restrictions, but more than 1,000 types and models have since been added to the approved list. Still, while DC residents are permitted to exercise their right to keep arms, they cannot bear them outside their own homes. And the District thinks that isn't infringement.
And Last...
The AFL-CIO apparently has gotten so lazy over the years that they've begun outsourcing their protests and shipping American jobs overseas. Lobbying congressmen on Capitol Hill for passage of the grossly misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act," union folks were passing out cardboard hammers with a union message and yellow plastic hard hats complete with a "Made in China" sticker on the inside. Spokesman Eddie Vale said, "Obviously our policy is to only use union vendors and it was a mistake by a new staffer who ordered them and unfortunately wasn't caught before they went out." Right, blame the "new staffer." No doubt another job "created or saved" by Barack Obama. Keep up the good, er, work, Eddie.
"FRC" (Family Research Council)
Senate poised to vote at any time on "hate crimes" legislation
http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147484834
Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians
For more visit www.FRC.org
While the Scriptures teach that both actions and attitudes are sinful (see Matt. 5:21-22), only our outward actions are punishable by law. In fact, Exodus 21-22 contains scores of laws and punishments against outward actions committed against others. However, no mention is made of the inward attitudes associated with those crimes.
Logic would suggest that violent crimes are inherently acts of “hate.” But the new category of law known as “hate crimes” involves punishing people not only for an outward act of violence, but also for the personal opinions which are thought to have motivated the crime. Homosexual activists and their allies in Congress are now pushing for a law (HR 1913/S 909) that would allow federal prosecution of any crimes allegedly motivated by bias, including bias against the victim's actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The latest federal hate crimes legislation says it only authorizes prosecution of those who cause or attempt to cause “bodily injury.”However, since violent crimes are already illegal, the “hate” label and federal intervention would be based on politically incorrect thoughts alone.
The truth is that wherever hate crimes laws have been adopted, there is an inevitable move to drop the requirement that there be an associated act of violence. In such cases, these laws have evolved to target what is regarded as hate speech and expression. What you say could literally land you in jail. According to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, hate crimes legislation could prove disastrous for pastors, churches, and organizations who advocate peacefully against the homosexual agenda and lifestyle. Here’s how: Currently, every state has laws that prohibit conspiracy to commit a crime. Linked to hate crimes, preaching or teaching against homosexual conduct could be prosecuted as conspiracy to commit a hate crime.
For instance, a minister who preaches from Genesis 19 or Romans 1, referencing the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, could be heard by an individual who applies it in a way prohibited by a hate crimes law. Not only would the offender be prosecuted under this law, but also the minister could be prosecuted for conspiracy.
Hate crimes laws would radically impact our freedom of speech!
Hate Crimes Action Alert
For more visit www.FRC.org
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009: HR 1913 has passed the House, so the battle moves on to the Senate. The current Senate plan is to ammend Hate Crimes to an authorization bill to try to sneek it through. However, Christians all across the nation can make an impact on the outcome
Hate Crimes Action Steps:
1. Pray for National Awareness – While it might sound good on the surface (nobody is for hate crimes), this hate crimes law would be disastrous for our freedoms. Hate crimes legislation would:
• Create a special class based on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."
• Establish a two-tiered system of justice where people are given one penalty for their actions and additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.
• Jeopardize the Constitutional rights of pastors and religious individuals to peacefully and publicly disagree on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.
2. Stay Informed – Sign up for the Washington Update at www.FRC.org and order a video copy of Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and SilencingChristians at www.FightHateCrimes.com.
3. Take Action – Some things you can do now:
1. Contact your Senators at (202) 224-3121 or www.FRC.org and tell them you are against Hate Crimes because of the threats to our Constitutional freedom of speech and religion.
2. Urge those who refuse to budge on hate crimes expansion to at least add a clear and a broadbased exemption sufficient to protect religious speech.
3. Share this message with four friends.
“I have a responsibility... to let people know that the way they live is wrong…. And... declare that if they turn around and follow Christ they will not come under judgment.” - Pastor Åke Green
Pastor Åke Green was sentenced on June 29, 2004 to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals in a sermon delivered in Borgholm, Sweden on July 20, 2003.
"ACU"
Obama and the Liberals don't want you or the American people to know what they are doing this summer.
While Americans are in the heat of summer, enjoying vacations with family and visits with the grandkids - Obama and the liberals within Washington are working to push government-run health care as fast as they can before the American people really know what is going on.
They want to catch us sleeping, they want us distracted. They think they can get away with it. They snuck through the stimulus and auto bailouts. That is why they want to pass a so-called health care reform bill before the August recess. They are using America's desire for some reform to force moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for a government-run "option" for health care.
As you will see in a video we made with Congressman and long-time medical Doctor Phil Roe (R-TN) recorded in his office just last Friday, this is part of the liberal's attempts to have government take over and control your health care. To view the video go here: http://www.conservative.org/DRPhilRoeHealthCare.html
We need to send a message now - right now - that American's don't need government-run health care.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Before you sit there and think that we cannot have an impact - or that our work against the all out liberal assault coming from Congress is falling on deaf ears - consider this. Recently the Cap and Trade Energy Tax vote in the House was so close and so controversial, because of your voice, the liberal leadership in the Senate has put off acting on it anytime soon.
We can do the same here and now, we can help put the brakes on this attempt to have government takeover health care, now, today!
Look at these News headlines and stories:
"Health care reform proponents are growing pessimistic that they can meet President Barack Obama's August target for passing a bill." (POLITICO newspaper today)
The AP reported, "Officials push for health care despite delay," stating that Obama and Pelosi have hit a roadblock but they are not giving up. (Associated Press)
"President Barack Obama, after a week of diplomacy abroad, now faces the possible derailment of his top priority at home, the overhaul of the health-care system." (Bloomberg News)
We can do it. We can fight back and win. We can stop a liberal attempt to take over Health Care!
We know that the governments will only make health care worse, not better. Conservatives stopped the ill-conceived "Hillary Care" plan in the 1990s, let's fight back again together now!
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
In the video with Congressman and Dr. Roe at
http://www.conservative.org/DRPhilRoeHealthCare.html he talks about all of the medical innovations we have seen in our nation.
Congressman and Dr. Roe also says our system is already better than that in Canada or England. Why would we copy a European-style system that doesn't deliver better care?
Why? ... Because the liberals just want bigger government and more control over your lives.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
In our video Dr. Roe notes a "public option," as Obama and Pelosi call it, is merely nice language to disguise a government takeover plan. This so-called health care reform plan will only provide coverage to a very, very small percent of the American population but it is estimated to cost more than $1 Trillion in taxpayer money.
Congressman Roe points out small businesses will drop health coverage first, then larger businesses. Soon everyone will be in government-run health care.
As a colleague here at ACU said, if you enjoy waiting in line at the state DMV office to get a driver's license, just think about visiting a doctor in a government-run health care system.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Politico said today, "House Democrat leaders still hope to approve a robust new network of government-sponsored health care this year." However, moderate Democrats are starting to buck their liberal Democrat leadership.
Moderate Democrats are beginning to join Republicans in demanding that small business owners not be forced to provide coverage or pay into the government's plan (up to $750 per employee) - which is Obama's real goal. These more moderate Members met with Pelosi last week in what was called a rather tough meeting. Let's show them some support.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi hope that Americans will go about their lives this summer and that they can sneak this into law. Let's prove them wrong.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS! DO NOT PASS A GOVERNMENT OPTION THAT WILL LEAD TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
There are many things happening on Capitol Hill this week. But this week, this issue is also important.
Please talk to your family and friends about this issue and help us send a message today.
Sincerely,
Dennis Whitfield
Executive Vice President
P.S. Last Thursday several reports came out about the massive tax increases needed to fund a government-run health care option. We all know that liberals estimate low. These tax increases could be absolutely huge when fully implemented. Don't allow them to harm our health care system and tax us into a full depression.
"The Web"
Obama snubbed in Moscow (video)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_snubbed_in_moscow_video.html
BORN IN THE USA?
Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up
Spokesman belittles WND reporter, asks 'what reporting' has been done
Joe Kovacs and Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103898
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs did not confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi'olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today refused to confirm that a letter posted by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu – purportedly from President Obama claiming the facility as his birthplace – is, in fact, real.
The issue arose today when Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked Gibbs about the letter, which the hospital also used in a magazine fundraising article.
However, when WND reported on the posted images and questioned their authenticity, the hospital concealed the online image, and then refused to confirm the letter even exists.
Gibbs' answer came in response to Kinsolving's question, which begins at the 55:27 mark into the video recorded by C-SPAN:
While you and the president were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature "Barack Obama," which stated, "The place of my birth was Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center." And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi'olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm?
Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website and used for fundraising before electronically hidden once WND disclosed it was not an actual paper letter, but merely HTML coding. The hospital and White House now refuse to confirm that a real document even exists.
Gibbs said, without responding directly to the question about the veracity of the letter, "Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital."
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
When Kinsolving asked when Gibbs could check, he responded.
"I will seek to interview whoever brought the president into this world. But can we just – I want to do this once and for all, Lester. Let's just do this once and for all. You can go on this – I hope you'll take the time not just to Google 'President, January 24, Hawaii hospital, birth' and come up with this letter, but go on the Internet and get the birth certificate, Lester, and put…"
When Kinsolving pointed out the image posted on various website's was not a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth, but a different "Certification of Live Birth" document, Gibbs said, "I know. Just a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the president was indeed born in the state of Hawaii."
But under Hawaiian law at the time of the president's birth, such documents were available for babies not even born in Hawaii.
Obama states in the purported letter that he was born at Kapi'olani. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website before being electronically hidden once WND publicized it.
Now the hospital refuses to confirm that a real document even exists. But a similar – although not identical – image purporting also to be a letter from Obama claiming Kapi'olani as his birth place appeared in the hospital's Inspire Magazine:
Then Gibbs, amidst a repeating chorus of guffaws and giggles from the White House press corps, started lecturing the WND correspondent, who is among a handful of the most senior correspondents on the White House assignment, about journalism.
"You know, Lester, I – I want to stay on this for a second, Lester, I want to stay on this for a second, because you're a smart man, right?" said Gibbs.
"Hypothetical," said an unidentified reporter.
"All right, all right, settle down in here. Only I get to make jokes like that," said Gibbs.
"Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America. And all of this incredible back-and-forth – I get e-mails today from people who inexplicably can figure out very easily the White House e-mail address, and want proof of where the president was born," Gibbs said.
"Lester, the next time you ask me a question I'm going to ask you what reporting you've done to demonstrate to your listeners the truth, the certificate, the state, so that they can look to you for that momentous search for the truth, and you can wipe away all the dark clouds and provide them with the knowing clarity that comes with that certainty," Gibbs said.
However, WND has reported that a wide range of Obama documentation – along with Obama's birth certificate – are not available, including Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
WND has reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama's birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama's birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.
And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president's supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.
When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility and used that claim as a major fund-raising tool commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.
WND has yet to be able to identify any physician or medical attendant present at Kapi'olani Hospital in 1961 who can recall Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, giving birth to Barack Obama at the hospital or who can identify the name of the attending physician.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
To date, Obama has not revealed his original long-form, hospital-generated "Certificate of Live Birth" that includes details such as the name of the medical facility and the doctor who delivered him.
Here is an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama's birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician. Beneath it is the short-form "Certification of Live Birth" offered by Obama as proof of his Hawaiian birth. It is possible to have been born outside of Hawaii and still obtain the latter form, but not the former:
Long-form birth certificate from state of Hawaii (Image courtesy Philip Berg)
Here is the "Certification of Live Birth" presented by Obama:
Short-form "Certification of Live Birth"
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" – challenges that all have been confronted by attorneys acting on the president's behalf to keep his records sealed.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
Among the cases have been several from Democrat Philip Berg, who has alleged that not only is Obama ineligible to be president, he was unqualified to be the senator from Illinois and should be prosecuted under the False Claims Act.
The key question in the dispute also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
They are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Questions for Sotomayor
by Jed Babbin
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32648
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt) is rushing the Supreme Court nomination of Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to its first hearing on Monday.
Since President Obama made the nomination on May 26, we have learned a lot, but not enough, about Sotomayor’s background and performance in her twelve years on the bench, first as a district court judge and then on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
We know that Sotomayor is a self-labeled “affirmative action baby.” She was, as a Princeton undergraduate, already a political activist. She was head of the campus chapter of Acción Puertorriqueña, a Puerto Rican activist group. According to a Washington Post report, in April 1973 she wrote and made a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, accusing “…Princeton of an "institutional pattern of discrimination" in hiring "Puerto Rican and Chicano" faculty, as well as in admitting students from those ethnic groups.”
Her activism continued, apparently up to the moment she was appointed to the bench. She was a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF, now called “Latino Justice”), an activist civil rights group that frequently engaged in litigation and took positions that were far beyond mainstream legal thought in the United States.
Sotomayor has been a federal judge since 1992 and was elevated to the Second Circuit in 1998. Many of her most controversial statements (and all controversial decisions, of course) have been since she took the bench.
We know that she has proclaimed her racial and gender pride repeatedly and -- contrary to the most basic tenets our law and Constitution -- said that she embraces them in rendering her version of justice. And we know that she has been reversed by the Supreme Court in cases that raise serious questions about her judicial temperament.
It’s time to ask tough questions and insist on complete and honest answers.
Here are five questions which Sotomayor should have to answer before her nomination is voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1. PRLDEF’s Positions Outside the Legal Mainstream: For twelve years (1980-1992), Judge Sotomayor served in various legal and policy making roles in the PRLDEF. She was at times a member of their Board of Directors, Vice President, and Chairperson of their Litigation and Education Committees. In 1981, PRLDEF wrote to the Governor of New York that “capital punishment represents ongoing racism within our society.” PRLDEF also took the position that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”
Question for Sotomayor: We know that you played an active role, frequently participating directly in the development of legal positions and strategies for PRLDEF. With respect to the 1981 letter on the death penalty and with respect to the opposition to Roe v. Wade, tell us precisely what your role was in developing each position and how you influenced its development.
2. Embracing Biases, not Facts: The Supreme Court only last month reversed Sotomayor in the New Haven firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano. In the lower court, the judge granted the defendant “summary judgment,” which meant two things. First, what the law (or the Constitution) says on an issue determines which facts are important to the case and which are not. When a court grants summary judgment, it means that there is no real dispute on the important facts, so no jury needs to decide what the facts are and the court can apply the law.
In Ricci, the district court granted summary judgment to the City of New Haven, saying that the important facts were not disputed and, on that basis, the white firefighters alleging that they had been discriminated against had no legal grievance.
Sotomayor (joined by two other judges) sustained the lower court’s decision without comment on the facts or explaining their application of the law.
The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s panel AND granted summary judgment to the firefighters, which means they found -- on the basis of the same facts -- that the firefighters had sustained a legal claim and that the city had no serious factual challenge to it.
In effect, the Supreme Court said that both the lower court and Sotomayor had based their judgments on the wrong set of facts.
In her 2001 Berkeley speech, Sotomayor said, “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
Question for Sotomayor: In reviewing the District Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, how did your gender and Latina heritage affect your choice of the facts on which to judge the case?
3. Second Amendment: In the 2009 decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, an opinion co-authored by Sotomayor, the Second Circuit upheld a law prohibiting the possession of a nunchaku, a martial arts weapon consisting of two wooden or steel rods connected by a rope or chain. Denying the defendant’s claim that his Second Amendment rights were violated, Sotomayor’s opinion said that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.”
Question for Sotomayor: In D.C. v Heller, the Supreme Court wrote that, “As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”…would fail constitutional muster.”
In light of that statement of the Constitutional law, do you believe a state or city which is not a federal entity can ban the possession of handguns?
4. International Law: Sotomayor wrote the foreword to Daniel Terris’ book, “The International Judge” published in 2007. In that foreword, Sotomayor wrote:
A proposed bill in Congress to prohibit the citation of foreign law in federal judicial decisions gave rise in recent years to a heated and extensive dialogue among American judges, academics and commentators on the appropriate role that foreign and international law should play in American constitutional adjudication.
But the question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution is not the only one worth posing. As The International Judge makes clear, we should also question how much we have to learn from international courts and from their male and female judges about the process of judging and the factors outside of the law that affect our decisions.
Questions for Sotomayor:
(a) Specifically how, and to what extent, should international law or foreign law be considered in interpreting the U.S. Constitution?
(b) What can we learn from international courts and their judges about the process of judging?
(c) How shall we differentiate among the male and female judges to learn from them?
(d) And, specifically and most importantly, what factors outside the law should affect your decisions?
5. Does an Unborn Child Have Constitutional Rights? In her interview with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sotomayor said that she had never thought about whether an unborn child has constitutional rights. How is that possible for a judge who has been on the bench since 1992? And how can that be reconciled with the actions of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which Sotomayor served as a prominent member from 1980-1992?
Question for Sotomayor: A child that is born is inarguably a person, and if that person is lucky enough to be born in the United States or come here later, he or she has rights under our Constitution. At some point in the pregnancy -- and we needn’t debate when that occurs in this hearing -- we believe the unborn fetus achieves the Constitutional status of a person, and thus has rights. Without debating when that moment occurs, do you agree that at some point an unborn child has rights under our Constitution?
If Sotomayor is asked those questions, the answers should illuminate for all Americans the answer to the question of her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, or the powerful court on which she now serves.
Teo Molin contributed research and reporting to this article.
Will Dems allow Goldman to manipulate a cap-and-trade market?
By William Tate
Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street leviathan that is heavily invested in the cap-and-trade carbon market scam, has admitted it has developed and used software that can manipulate such financial markets.
The revelation came during proceedings in a legal case with enough plot twists to make even John Grisham proud; it was made, not by Goldman, but by an assistant U.S. Attorney.
"(B)ecause of the way this software interfaces with the various markets and exchanges, the bank has raised a possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways," Joseph Facciponti told a federal magistrate in an unusual Saturday afternoon bail hearing -- and not just any Saturday afternoon, but the Fourth of July.
Facciponti's comments came at a hearing for Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs programmer, who had been arrested the day before, disembarking from a plane at Newark's Liberty International Airport. Aleynikov is accused of absconding with the code for the Goldman program and uploading it to a server in Germany, shortly before leaving the firm to take a job with a Chicago start-up for three times his $400,000 a year Goldman salary.
Aleynikov denies the charges.
Goldman uses the program for all of its trades
While Facciponti's remarks that the Goldman computer program could "manipulate markets in unfair ways" have received attention in the financial press, another, almost equally important statement made by Facciponti has gone virtually unnoticed. According to transcripts of the hearing, as posted at the Wall Street Journal:
"What the defendant is accused of having stolen from the investment bank (later identified by defense counsel as Goldman Sachs) is their proprietary, high-quantity, high-volume trading platform with which they conduct all of their trades in all major markets in the United States and other places." (emphasis added)
In other words, Goldman already uses the software. Implicit in Facciponti's court statements is that Goldman can be trusted not to manipulate markets but others can not.
Even if Goldman hasn't actually rigged markets, the program could be used to give Goldman other unfair advantages; business commentator and author of Bailout Nation Barry Ritholz outlines some possibilities at his blog:
Theoretically, this would allow GS to buy (or sell) stocks, selling (or covering) them back to the now compromised trader towards the end of their purchase (sale). Or, they could take a position, assuming there was more flow behind the initial order. Or, they could arbitrage a few fractional cents each trade.
Coincidentally or not, Bank of America analyst Guy Moszkowski says that Goldman Sachs is on pace this year to beat its trading-revenue record in 2007.
Goldman wouldn't manipulate markets, would they?
But what are we to make of Facciponti's comment that "there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways."
Which leads the inquiring mind to ask, How does Goldman know that its program has that capability?
Goldman, being the good corporate citizens they are, would never have used it that way.
Or would they?
A recent article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone accuses Goldman of manipulating markets to create speculative bubbles, including the internet bubble, last year's crazy ride in oil prices, and the current economic bust initiated by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.
In his thoroughly-researched and well-sourced book, House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street ($27.95 Doubleday), William D. Cohan writes of a crucial moment in that meltdown. He quotes an unnamed Bear executive describing how they were trying to value, or "mark", mortgage-backed securities, a process by which the SEC required that they averaged the highest and lowest marks provided by other firms. The executive said the marks were coming in at 97 or 98 cents on the dollar, when Goldman Sachs pushed the market over the cliff:
"Suddenly we get these marks. Except these marks are not 98 to 97. They go from 98 to 50 and 60... and that is game f****ing over. By the way, the firm that sent us the 50 made a s**t pot full of money in 2007 shorting the f***ing market."
The effect of the new marks from Goldman Sachs .... was immediate and devastating...
With the hindsight of a few months, the Bear executive's fury at Goldman had not abated. "If everybody's getting overwhelmed by a tsunami and a couple of guys are making a f***ing fortune, that usually is grounds for at least taking a closer look to see what is going on, as to why they were making a fortune... I just told you a story that as about as relevant and about as potent as nitroglycerin, if you ask me."
-House of Cards, p 337
And, suddenly, mortgage-backed securities were melting like cheese on a summer picnic's hamburger.
Goldman defended their slashing of subprime securities prices in half, almost overnight, and a Goldman official told Cohan the firm "did not make nearly as much money in 2007 betting against the mortgage market as people think it did."
Just as Goldman's finger may have helped pop the housing bubble, its fingerprints are all over the start of that bubble as well, through its influence on Clinton-era policies.
Economist Dennis Sewell noted in The Spectator magazine:
The main thrust of the Clinton housing strategy was to increase home ownership among the poor, and particularly among blacks and Hispanics... standing in the way of the realisation of this dream were the conservative lending policies of the banks, which required such inconvenient and old-fashioned things as cash deposits and regular repayments - things the poor and minorities often could not provide.
The Clinton administration initiated its strategy through reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act, accounced in December, 1993.
Well-respected analyst Meredith Whitney has noted that home ownership in the U.S. "had been 64% prior to 1994 for as far back as the eye can see." After the new government policies, that rate climbed to 69%. Whitney told Business Week last December that she expects the financial crisis caused by the mortgage meltdown to last through mid-2010 because, "For 15 or 20 years cheap credit was extended to a lot of people who were not worthy. Now you've got to resize that business back to traditional, normalized credit."
Sewell in his Spectator article, wrote that to make sure the new policies were implemented, the administration set up "a network of enforcement offices across the country, manned by attorneys and investigators, and primed to spearhead an assault on the mortgage banks, bringing suits against any suspected of practicing unlawful discrimination, whether on the basis of race, gender or disability."
In other words, the Clinton administration, using the full force and authority of the U.S. government, bullied lenders into making questionable mortgages, accelerating -- if not initiating -- the housing bubble through its CRA reforms.
Goldman Sachs played a major hand in these Clinton-era financial policies through Robert Rubin, former Co-Chairman of the firm, who actually announced them on December 8, 1993. Rubin boasted that, "CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities around the country." (Emphasis added.) Rubin was then Clinton's influential Assistant for Economic Policy and later went on to become an even more influential Secretary of the Treasury.
Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone:
During his (Robert Rubin's) tenure at Treasury, the Clinton White House made a series of moves that would have drastic consequences for the global economy - beginning with Rubin's complete and total failure to regulate his old firm during its first mad dash for obscene short-term profits.
Taibbi adds that other Goldman graduates played a major hand when the market crashed, including another Goldman-ex turned Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson:
Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers -- one of Goldman's last real competitors -- collapse without intervention... The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.
The next bubble?
From the mortgage bubble, Goldman learned an important -- and very valuable -- lesson: Government policies, especially if shaped by a network of former Goldman officials, could be used to create vast profits, indeed whole markets.
This leads us to what Taibbi calls "the new game in town," cap-and-trade. Or cap-and-tax, if you prefer.
It is a potential trillion-dollar market, that had its beginnings in Chicago about the time that Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, even though the U.S. Senate had spurned the international agreement by a 95-0 vote. And Barack Obama has been involved in the potentially lucrative market almost from the start.
The Chicago Climate Exchange was formed to implement the carbon emissions trading gold rush Kyoto would have opened up; however, when President Bush withdrew from the protocol -- forever earning George Soros' enmity -- it looked like the exchange was dead. Enter Chicago's Joyce Foundation, a senior board member of which was one Barack Obama.
From Fox News:
Obama served as one of 12 directors on the Joyce Foundation board from July 1994 until December 2002, according to a Joyce foundation spokesman. But it was only in 2000 and 2001 that the foundation gave money to the Climate Exchange -- funds deemed by the exchange itself to be fundamental to its successful launch, and in fact to its early survival.
Having survived, thanks to the million-dollar bailout from Obama and the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago Climate Exchange went on to merge with Climate Exchange Ltd in 2006. Goldman Sachs took a 10% stake in the firm at the time and later increased its holdings to at least 19%. CCX is also 10% owned by Generation Investment Management, a firm founded and chaired by Al Gore and co-founded by the above-mentioned former Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson.
According to EnergyRisk.com,
"Goldman Sachs is a major trader of European Union allowances and is set to be a key player in the US emissions markets that are planned to start up at the end of the decade."
But the markets have to be created first.
Trading firms sometimes call themselves 'market makers' for creating the markets in which securities and other investments are traded. Goldman learned from the housing bubble that it could forego that risk by getting the U.S. government to take it for them. So, now Goldman is turning to Washington to do its bidding, specifically the Democrats in Congress and the White House that it expects to approve and sign cap-and-trade legislation. Democrats that Goldman has bought and paid for.
Taibbi writes that Goldman personnel -- it's not legal for the corporations, themselves, to make political contributions -- donated nearly four-and-a half million dollars to get Democrats elected last fall. And the Center for Responsive Politics (CPR)'s OpenSecrets.org reports that almost a million of that went to the man who helped keep the Climate Exchange alive back in 2000 and 2001, Barack Obama.
In fact, Goldman was Obama's largest private contributor and "was the biggest business donor to Democrats in 2008, according to a (CPR) report. Some 73 percent of Goldman Sachs's millions in 2006-08 donations went to Democrats," according to a March article by Kevin D. Williamson in National Review.
And Goldman wasn't alone. Sniffing the profits that Wall Street's biggest shark expects to make from the new market, other investment firms, like smaller sharks sniffing blood in the water, went all-in last year, too. According to OpenSecrets, investment and security folks shelled out $14,788,852 to Obama, while hedge fund personnel invested just over three million dollars on their man. Both figures are almost twice the amounts donated to the Republican candidate, John McCain.
Overall investment and financial institution personnel donated $87,965,961 to Democrats, or about 57% of their total donations, a sharp break from years past, when Republicans generally held a slight edge. The numbers are even more lopsided going into next year's congressional election with 66% of the money donated so far going to the cap-and-trade party.
These figures, of course, do not include donations made to certain PACS or 527's or George Soros's relentless efforts to get willing Democrats elected.
Taibbi accuses Goldman of riding from bubble to bubble, sucking all of the public's money it can from each bubble before moving on to the next. With Goldman's push for cap-and-trade, "now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet."
But, of course, Goldman Sachs would never manipulate markets.
Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!
Make a personal reflection about this..... Very interesting, read until the end.....
It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Here are some men and women who mocked God :
John Lennon (Singer):
Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:
"Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but His subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him" (1966).
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.
Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.
Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died .
Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):
During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: "God, that's for you."
He died at the age of 32 of AIDS in a horrible manner.
The man who built the Titanic:
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.
With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it"
The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic .
Marilyn Monroe (Actress)
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need your Jesus".
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment .
Bon Scott (Singer)
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:
"Don't stop me, I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell".
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit . (gross..)
Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....
The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:
"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.."
She responded: "Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here..... It's Already Full "
Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.
The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken .
Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written. In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.
Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus. Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive. Jesus said, "If you are embarrassed about me, I will also be embarrassed about you before my father."
"The e-mail Bag"
A Sunday School teacher asked her class why Joseph and Mary took Jesus with them to Jerusalem . A small child replied, 'They couldn't get a baby-sitter.'
A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds. After explaining the commandment to 'Honor thy father and thy mother,' she asked, 'Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat
our brothers and sisters?' Without missing a beat, one little boy answered, 'Thou shall not kill.'
At Sunday School they were teaching how God created everything, including human beings. Little Johnny seemed especially intent when they told him how Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs. Later in the week his mother noticed him lying down as though he were ill, and she said, 'Johnny, what is the matter?' Little Johnny responded, 'I have pain in my side.. I think I'm going to have a wife.'
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090714
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
If you don't care, your customer never will. -- Marlene Blaszczyk
Applying “The Pareto Principle” to Your Goals
Vilfredo Pareto was a 19th-century Italian social scientist and critic. He observed that 80% of the wealth in Italy, at the time, was concentrated in 20% of the population – something he felt that was not good for society. While the genesis of his work is very seldom discussed, his name lives on in what is known as The Pareto Principle, or “the 80/20 rule” – a concept that is a relevant today as it was when it was first developed.
Talk to contemporary entrepreneurs and most will tell you that 80% of their business comes from 20% of their customers. Human resources executives will typically suggest that 80% of the employee relations problems and issues they have to deal with come from just 20% of the employees. And most business managers would agree that it’s a minority of their team members who are responsible for a majority of the innovation, creativity, and superior work their organizations enjoy. In all of these examples, the Pareto Principle suggests that we should pay attention to, and focus our efforts on, the critical few (the 20%) rather than the trivial or average many (the 80%).
So what does all this have to do with you and your goals? A lot! There’s a myriad of things you can do in pursuit of your professional and personal objectives. A large number of them fall into the 80% – the “trivial many.” A much smaller number fall in the “critical few” category – the important 20%.
Take a look at your goals and the action plans you’ve developed for meeting them. What are you doing? How are you investing your precious time? What do your past experiences – and the experiences of others – tell you? Are you focusing on “need to do,” high payback activities – or on less important, “like to do” tasks? Remember it’s that “critical few” that will propel you furthest and give you the most bang for your time an energy buck. When in doubt, think W-W-P-D (What Would Pareto Do?).
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, He gives freedom". (2 Corinthians 3:17)
I am thankful God does not change what He says based on opinion polls or focus groups. His words and commands are timeless. They apply to every culture, race, and nationality.
That is why the Bible has remained relevant throughout the ages. What God says is always pertinent. It never becomes obsolete. His timeless truth is the surest foundation.
Almost to a man, the founding fathers of the United States sought to serve and glorify Jesus Christ with their lives. One study reviewed 15,000 writings by the founding fathers. It found that 94 percent of all quotes either directly or indirectly cited the Bible. Fifty-two of the 55 framers of the Constitution were self-avowed Christians. They even dedicated this new republic to His honor and glory.
The efforts of our founding fathers produced miraculous results. The United States Constitution is currently the oldest operating document of any government in the world. The liberties it guarantees are greater than the liberties granted to the citizens of any other nation. And all this sprang from God's unchanging principles based on His unchanging character communicated through His unchanging Word.
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, and the man who guided America through a civil war, stated, "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book."
"The Patriot Post"
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." -- John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1757
"To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted." -- Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, December, 1791
"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" -- George Washington, letter to James Warren, March 31, 1779
"Rick Santorum"
Muddled on Democracy: The Case of Honduras
The military-enforced removal of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 has generated a widespread wringing of hands across the globe, as leaders of both nations and international watchdog organizations once again find themselves debating the means and methods of democratic rule. Does the buck really stop at free and so-called "fair" elections? Or is a certain accountability beyond that initial vote needed for liberal democracies to flourish and protect its citizens?
It appears that the spread of Chavismo has confused the debate, infecting even the international media and U.S. policymakers, too many of whom for too long condemned the removal of the corrupt and reckless Zelaya as a "coup d'état." What we really have going on here is national treason at the highest level, with the very Constitution of Honduras having been flagrantly disregarded by the man elected to defend it. Where was all of the uproar about "democracy" 48 hours before Zelaya was removed from office, when he sidestepped judicial rulings and constitutional law? Last time I checked, being elected "democratically" was no license to overthrow the law.
Hasty declarations from the U.S. have been damaging, and it has taken too long for the Honduran patriots to get their side of the story out. Hillary Clinton made some mild rhetorical improvements in her press conference on Tuesday, but time will tell what these U.S.-endorsed negotiations with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias produce. In the meantime, I want to present you with the bare facts of the situation as it has progressed since last fall. May they speak for themselves, and may they speak for the Honduran people.
November 11, 2008
Honduran President Manuel Zelaya announces that he is seeking a fourth ballot box to be installed at polling places nationwide for November 29, 2009, one which offers to hold a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution and allow him to run for reelection.
March 24, 2009
Zelaya issues executive decree PCM-05-2009 (without publishing the full text) for the National Statistical Institute to hold the national referendum by June 28, 2009. In Honduras, with a congressional majority the president can amend the constitution without any referendum. However, eight articles, including term limits and process of presidential succession cannot be amended. Because the president can amend 368 of 375 articles without any constituent assembly, it can be assumed that Zelaya’s underlying motive is to extend his rule.
Late Spring 2009
The Honduran Armed Forces initially pledge support to the President and commander in chief, providing logistical support for the referendum. Zelaya begins to press for a non-binding survey (commonly referred to as a referendum by the international media), which purports to assess the population’s desire for a National Constituent Assembly.
Tuesday, June 23
The Supreme Court of Honduras, Congress, the country's attorney general, and the supreme electoral tribunal oppose the poll. The Honduran army informs the president they will not support the referendum.
Thursday, June 25
The president fires the head of the armed forces, and ignores a Supreme Court ruling ordering him to reinstate five-star General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez. Congress (including Zelaya’s own party) begins discussing grounds for impeachment. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez complains that ''there is a coup d'etat under way in Honduras,'' led by the “retrograde bourgeoisie.''
Friday, June 26
President Zelaya, along with a thousand of his paid activists, drives to the Honduras Air Force base in Tegucigalpa, where the survey’s material is being stored (having originally been flown in from Venezuela). Disobeying a court order, Zelaya robs the material and takes it to another location, facing little resistance with the intimidation of his surrounding mob. The Supreme Court orders the military to arrest Zelaya, and authorizes them to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest.
Saturday, June 27
Thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule march through the capital city. The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the military recommend that voters stay home for the sake of safety and fairness.
Sunday, June 28
At 5:30 a.m., President Zelaya is seized by soldiers acting on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, and taken to an air force base, before he is exiled to Costa Rica. The Honduran Congress officially votes out Zelaya and replaces him with Roberto Micheletti, the former president of Congress. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez threatens to invade Honduras.
Monday, June 29
Chávez, along with the leaders of Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, gather in Managua to discuss the situation. Chavez alludes to his belief that America was involved in the so-called “coup d'état.” Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua announce their plan to suspend overland trade with Honduras for 48 hours. Even U.S.. President Barack Obama says that "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras.” The new Honduran government expresses its resolve to remain in power.
Tuesday, June 30
The UN General Assembly votes unanimously to denounce the coup. The Organization of American States (OAS) holds an emergency session. Thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule continue to march through Tegucigalpa.
Wednesday, July 1
Zelaya addresses the United Nations, while the OAS Secretary-General threatens to suspend Honduras’s membership unless the new government reinstates Zelaya within three days. Honduras’s interim president Roberto Micheletti says his government is open to “dialogue” with Manuel Zelaya, but denies the possibility of backing down.
Thursday, July 2
Zelaya meets with leaders from Panama and Venezuela to discuss the coup. Thousands of the new government’s supporters march in Sand Pedro Sula, while thousands of Zelaya’s supporters gather in Tegucigalpa. The European Union announces its decision to remove all EU ambassadors from Honduras, and the U.S. suspends part of its aid program to Honduras.
Friday, July 3
The OAS president visits Honduras in order to attempt to restore Zelaya to power, but the new Honduran government rejects threats to reinstate Zelaya.
Saturday, July 4
The OAS votes unanimously to suspend Honduras’ membership.
Sunday, July 5
The Honduran police block Zelaya, along with the UN president, from flying into Tegucigalpa. At least one person is killed as police disperse the crowds of Zelaya’s supporters. Micheletti expresses a desire to negotiate with the OAS.
Monday, July 6
Thousands of Zelaya supporters march to the presidential palace to protest the new government. A group of Honduran businesspeople fly to Washington to advocate for the new government and maintain their trading ability.
Tuesday, July 7
Secretary Clinton meets with Zelaya in Washington, D.C., and announces Zelaya’s and Micheletti’s acceptance of a U.S.-endorsed mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, to try to resolve their conflict.
Wednesday, July 8
Zelaya clarifies and says that he has no intention of negotiating with the interim government: “It’s simply listening through a mediator…to see how they are planning their departure.”
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Program to Protect America's Freedom
1015 15th Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
"Simple Truths"
The Simple Truths of Service
http://www.stservicemovie.com/
"Thoughts"
By: Floyd Wood
Life isn't waiting for the storm to pass; it's learning to dance in the rain---
The best way to save face is to keep the bottom half of it closed---
The best way to kill time is to work it to death.
One loyal friend is worth a dozen relatives.
A psychologist is selling a video for $12.95 that teaches you about your dog's IQ. If you buy the video ; it proves your dog is smarter than you are..
"Liberty Counsel"
Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org
July 13, 2009
Is Sotomayor an Activist Policymaker or a Neutral Umpire? Follow our LIVE BLOG at 10 a.m.
The confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor begin today at 10 a.m. before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Liberty Counsel will blog the entire hearing at www.LC.org.
President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retired Justice David Souter. The Democratic-led Senate has rushed these hearings before there has been adequate time to evaluate Sotomayor’s past rulings and statements.
She was actively involved on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1980-1992, while the group supported the abortion rights group, NOW, and other extreme groups, such as ACORN.
Since that time, Sotomayor openly admits that she judges using personal prejudice rather than impartial neutrality.
Read our News Release for more details about Sotomayor's record, then follow our LIVE BLOG starting at 10 a.m.
Forward this email to your list of family and friends, and encourage them to join the blog and to subscribe to our Liberty Alert email update.
Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.
Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854
"The Web"
Clear Conscience Health Care
http://www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org/
Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital
There is so much evidence to substantiate that President Obama may have been born in Kenya, rather than being a "natural born citizen", as required by the US Constitution. President Obama professes to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The fact is that in 1961, it is my belief that every state in America issued a true "Birth Certificate", specifically if born in a certified hospital. If President Obama was born in any hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, why can an authentic "Birth Certificate" not be found? Why do leaders in the Democrat Party fail to require certification? Is partisan politics more important than our US Constitution? - oyh
Uploaded by: admin
Myth-busting Web site, news articles say president not born in location he claims
By Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://usjf.net/archives/1270#more-1270
More than eight months after Barack Obama was elected president, the mystery surrounding his precise birthplace is deepening as the myth-busting Web site Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and an Obama community blog – directly contradict the president’s own claim regarding the hospital in which he was born.
In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.
Barack Obama states in this letter on White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center on its website.
But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.
In Snopes’ entry concerning allegations that Obama is a “radical Muslim,” the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, “Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
In this July 7, 2009, screenshot of Snopes.com highlighted by WND, the myth-busting website asserts President Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, not the Kapi’olani Medical Center in which Obama claims to have been born.
Within just 90 minutes of the WND report, Snopes swapped the location of the president’s birth from Queen’s to Kapi’olani.
Screenshot of same Snopes.com address on July 8. 2009, reveals Snopes swapped the location of President Obama’s birth from Queen’s Medical Center to the Kapi’olani Medical Center.
It noted some ambiguity by stating, “News accounts have also variously placed his birth as having occurred at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”)
Interestingly, in Snopes’ entry focusing on the natural-born citizenship controversy, no mention is made of the birth hospital.
But Snopes is not alone in asserting Obama was born at a hospital other than the one he personally claims.
A number of news articles published both in the U.S. and abroad name Queen’s Medical Center – not Kapi’olani – as the correct birthplace.
A United Press International report from Nov. 4 states:
“Obama described his birth at Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an ‘all-America’ story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience.”
A July 7, 2009, screenshot of a United Press International story dated Nov. 4, 2008, indicates Barack Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
After this WND story was originally posted, UPI also swapped the hospital of birth to indicate Obama was born at Kapi’olani, as shown here at the same online address:
Screenshot of same UPI.com address on July 8. 2009, reveals UPI swapped the location of President Obama’s birth from Queen’s Medical Center to the Kapi’olani Medical Center.
A November 2004 report from the Rainbow Edition News Letter, published by the Education Laboratory School in Hawaii, noted in its lead sentence:
“Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
This screenshot of the November 2004 edition of the Rainbow Edition News Letter states at its outset Obama was born at Queen’s Medical Center.
Adding a twist to the dispute is a separate claim on the MyBarackObama.com campaign website that lists a genealogy for Obama citing his birthplace as Queen’s Medical Center.
The site documents Obama’s lineage back to his great-great-great grandparents, who lived in the mid-1800s.
It states: “Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas.”
William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress, first listed the birth location at Queen’s.
Kenya’s East African Standard, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled “From Young ‘Barry’ to Top American Senator,” said of Obama: “The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Centre of the University of Hawaii in Manoa.”
But news agencies are hardly unanimous on the exact hospital.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu Advertiser and Washington Post have all published stories indicating Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center, in agreement with the president’s letter to the facility.
But even the Honolulu Advertiser, in a Nov. 9 article, admitted “the hospital where he was born is difficult to document,” as officials clam up while citing federal privacy laws.
“We can’t confirm or deny it – even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital,” said hospital spokeswoman Claire Tong. “Our hands are tied.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions only that Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, but makes no reference to any hospital.
The Associated Press reports that Internet users are far from ignorant about the questions over Obama’s birthplace and documentation.
“Among the top search terms paired with Barack Obama: biography, Israel, news, jokes, stimulus package, birth certificate (related to those persistent but unfounded rumors that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus ineligible to be president.),” the news organization stated.
Makana Shook, corporate communications coordinator for Queen’s, told WND, “The hospital is not allowed to give out any information to the public about patients without the patient’s permission, because of federal HIPAA law restrictions.”
Kapi’olani officials said they would release any documentation they may have about the president’s birth if the president gives his permission to make the documentation public.
The White House did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The question to the White House noted the multiple references to Queen’s. “Then, beginning sometime after the start of 2009, the president and various members of his family, including his sister Maya Soetoro, changed the story and gave interviews (or wrote letters as above) claiming President Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.
“Why did the president claim to be born at two different hospitals in Hawaii?” WND asked. “Which is the true hospital where the president was born?”
Snopes responded to a WND request for comment about the conflict between its report and Obama’s statement with an automated message that shed no light on the matter.
WND has reported that among the documentation – besides his birth certificate – not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
That may very well be intentional on the part of Obama, who used his first full day in residence in the Oval Office to issue an executive order restricting the release of presidential records.
“Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose presidential records, the attorney general (directly or through the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel) and the counsel to the president shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified,” the order states.
“If either the attorney general or the counsel to the president believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the president by the counsel to the president and the attorney general.”
The result is that the president ultimately would decide if those records can be released.
“After receiving such notice, the archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent president or by a final court order,” the order said.
Meanwhile, there are some who maintain Obama was not born in the U.S. at all as he claims, but in Africa.
An affidavit submitted to WND by Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya, asserts “it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya.”
Shuhubia further states in his affidavit that he visited Obama’s grandmother at her home in the village of Alego-Kogello, on Oct. 16, 2008, in order to conduct a telephone conference interview that would connect with McRae in the United States.
During the telephone interview, McRae specifically asked Sarah Obama two times, “Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya.”
“Both times she specifically replied, ‘Yes,’” Shuhubia affirmed in the affidavit.
“Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States,” Shuhubia continued in the affidavit.
WND also reported the office of Hawaii Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of Obama’s hospital-generated long-form original birth certificate.
The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
By Matt Cover
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718
President Barack Obama looks on as his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday May 26, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais )
(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.
The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”
“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.
“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”
In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.
“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”
The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.
“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”
Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.
“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”
Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.
“Whenever you have a conflict like this, you’re likely to have it end up before the Supreme Court so they can decide the issue. If the Second Amendment is incorporated into the states, it’s going to jeopardize thousands of local gun laws, and the people who supported those gun laws are just freaked about that.”
The Bankrupt Party of Porkulus
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=598830
Let there be no doubt: Democrats are the party with two ideas -- borrow and spend. The only vigorous internal debate on the left revolves around two questions: How much and how much more? Even as the first trillion-dollar stimulus craters, the debt-o-crats are floating yet another grand act of generational theft to create the illusion of jumpstarting the economy.
Call it Spawn of Spendulus. Return of the Porkulus Beast. White House economic adviser Laura D'Andrea Tyson told an international economic conference: "We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus." Team Obama flack Robert Gibbs says the president isn't "ruling anything out, but at the same time he's not ruling anything in." Despite the inconvenient fact that less than 10 percent of the initial stimulus has been spent (or misspent), congressional Democrats remain "open" to the idea of digging a deeper fiscal hole for your children and grandchildren.
Porkulus One was a massive payoff to special interests and political constituencies (and dead people!) disguised as a job generator. A General Accounting Office analysis this week revealed that stimulus dollars allocated to states and localities are not being spent on what they're supposed to be spent on. States are making up their own criteria for spending. The most economically distressed parts of the country are getting shortchanged. School and transportation bureaucrats are using the money to preserve their own jobs instead of "stimulating" others. And assessments of the stimulative effect of the package are a joke. As House Republicans noted: "The administration has essentially 'rigged the game' of reporting the tangible effects of its stimulus program by creating an immeasurable metric -- 'jobs created or saved' -- that no one can disprove."
Irked by the mounting evidence of stimulus failure, Vice President Joe Biden griped at a spending event on Thursday: "This ain't about swimming pools and Frisbee parks and polar bear exhibits. This is about stuff that not only passed the test of jobs, but passed the smell test....All the talk about how we're gonna waste all this money, that's a dog that ain't barked yet. And it's not gonna bark on my watch." Yet last month, Sen. Tom Coburn exposed 100 smelly stimulus projects worth $5.5 billion, including $3.4 million for a wildlife "eco-passage" in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway; nearly $10 million to renovate an unused train station; and a $2 million "weatherization" contract awarded to a Nevada nonprofit recently fired for doing the same type of work.
After failing to recognize the inevitable and inexorable political forces that turned the stimulus into the mother of all Beltway boondoggles, media outlets are now playing catch up:
- USA Today reported this week that "counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain."
- ABC News reported this week that the failed stimulus tracking website run by the White House, Recovery.gov, will get an additional $18 million taxpayer-funded injection to support a "redesign." The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso points out that the contract was awarded to a Maryland firm whose donors have contributed $19,000 to Maryland's House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
- The Washington Times reported this week that "as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse" in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's backyard.
- And despite all the initial focus on basic infrastructure needs, Land Line magazine reported this week that "even with federal stimulus spending that put shovels in the ground on new infrastructure projects, analysts predict an overall decline of 4.3 percent on infrastructure in 2009."
The same underhanded, transparency-defying, earmark-stuffing process that marked the porkulus beast is dominating every other pricey piece of legislation hurtling through the Democrat-led Congress. The Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that passed the House two weeks ago contained bribes galore -- including a $50 million hurricane research center for Florida Democrat Alan Grayson and a $3.5 billion economic development "sweetener" package for Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur. The current healthcare takeover proposals feature a crucial payoff to Big Labor -- a golden exemption from any tax on union members' generous health care benefits.
The friends and patrons of Obama may be making out like bandits. But for everyone else, the Democrats' ideological bankruptcy comes at a nauseatingly steep price.
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."
Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!
Ginsburg responded:
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
When pressed to explain what she meant by reproductive rights needing to be straightened out, Ginsburg said, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."
Asked if that meant getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion such as a waiting period, the justice said she was "not a big fan of these tests."
I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman's decision. It's entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn't mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Three years ago, Ginsburg received some embarrassing national attention when she napped Actual artist rendition of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asleep during a hearing in 2006 on the bench during a court hearing.
"Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge," reported Gina Holland of the Associated Press.
The incident caught the attention of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who said:
"At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning – not denied by a court spokeswoman – Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.
What is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act?
It is a law that was adopted by the United States Congress and was signed into law by President Bush. What it seeks to do is, "to protect unborn children from assault and murder." It inserts provisions in the criminal code that make it a separate crime to kill a fetus in the womb. It uses language, such as "unborn children" and "child in utero" that defines the child in the womb as a human being.
The bill would make it a crime to kill or injure an unborn child during an act of violence committed against a pregnant woman. "We believe that when you have violence against a pregnant woman, you have essentially two victims. Obviously the mother is a victim, but you also have the unborn child as a victim and we believe there should be a separate penalty."
Pro-choice groups say the bill aims to undermine abortion rights. Such groups support the Motherhood Protection Act, which pushes additional penalties for violent crimes against women without recognizing fetuses as separate people. However the unborn child should be recognized as a victim. It's not about pushing the pro-life agenda. It's not about abortion. "This is about protecting unborn children, pregnant mothers. And it hasn't been controversial in those states where we do have it on the books. Unfortunately we still do not have this bill after trying for the past ten years, thanks in part to very powerful members of the North Carolina General Assembly such as Rep. Deborah Ross (Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net) and Rep. Joe Hackney "speaker of the house". (Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net).
In fact there have been almost no problems with it. So I think it's a common sense measure. My guess is, if we can get the NC House as well as the NC Senate to pass this, in a few years time people will look back and wonder what all the controversy was all about."
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I strongly believe that the involuntary termination of a pregnancy through violence or other premeditated act must be treated as a violent felony. Under current state law, an unborn child is not considered a legal victim of a crime. In the case of homicide, North Carolina literally allows criminals to get away with murder.
Sadly, murder has become the number one cause of death for pregnant women in America. An estimated one in five women will be abused during their pregnancy. Women who choose to have their babies are dying (and, so are their babies) because of their choice. And most of the assailants are the fathers of the unborn children.
Violent attacks on pregnant women in North Carolina have increased since 2000 and highlight the deficiency in current law and the need for reform.
36 states currently have this law on the books, including States with a more liberal representation such as California. Scott Peterson of California was sentenced to death by lethal injection in March 2005 after he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn child, Laci and Conner, and dumping their bodies in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.
The Peterson case resulted in the passage of a national law and measures in state legislatures to provide more protection and justice for pregnant women and their unborn children when they are killed or injured in an attack.
The Justice For All Coalition "www.thejusticeforallcoalition.com" will continue to travel the state and educate the public, as well as put pressure on these powerful legislatures who represent their special interest groups rather than their constituents until this bill is signed into law.
As the organizer of this organization I need your help emailing these lawmakers or calling them.
Rep. Deborah Ross- 919-733-5773
Rep. Joe Hackney-919-733-3451
Together we can make North Carolina a safer state to live, work, and raise our families.
Jeff Gerber
Monroe,NC
704-564-0065
www.thejusticeforallcoalition.com
Kindness
by Author Unknown
One day a woman was walking down the street when she spied a beggar sitting on the corner. The man was elderly, unshaven, and ragged. As he sat there, pedestrians walked by him giving him dirty looks They clearly wanted nothing to do with him because of who he was -- a dirty, homeless man. But when she saw him, the woman was moved to compassion.
It was very cold that day and the man had his tattered coat -- more like an old suit coat rather than a warm coat -- wrapped around him. She stopped and looked down. "Sir?" she asked. "Are you all right?"
The man slowly looked up. This was a woman clearly accustomed to the finer things of life. Her coat was new. She looked like that she had never missed a meal in her life. His first thought was that she wanted to make fun of him, like so many others had done before. "Leave me alone," he growled.
To his amazement, the woman continued standing. She was smiling -- her even white teeth displayed in dazzling rows. "Are you hungry?" she asked.
"No," he answered sarcastically. "I've just come from dining with the president. Now go away."
The woman's smile became even broader. Suddenly the man felt a gentle hand under his arm. "What are you doing, lady?" the man asked angrily. "I said to leave me alone."
Just then a policeman came up. "Is there any problem, ma'am?" he asked.
"No problem here, officer," the woman answered. "I'm just trying to get this man to his feet. Will you help me?"
The officer scratched his head. "That's old Jack. He's been a fixture around here for a couple of years. What do you want with him?"
"See that cafeteria over there?" she asked. "I'm going to get him something to eat and get him out of the cold for awhile."
"Are you crazy, lady?" the homeless man resisted. "I don't want to go in there!" Then he felt strong hands grab his other arm and lift him up. "Let me go, officer. I didn't do anything."
"This is a good deal for you, Jack," the officer answered. "Don't blow it."
Finally, and with some difficulty, the woman and the police officer got Jack into the cafeteria and sat him at a table in a remote corner. It was the middle of the morning, so most of the breakfast crowd had already left and the lunch bunch had not yet arrived. The manager strode across the cafeteria and stood by the table. "What's going on here, officer?" he asked. "What is all this. Is this man in trouble?"
"This lady brought this man in here to be fed," the policeman answered.
"Not in here!" the manager replied angrily. "Having a person like that here is bad for business."
Old Jack smiled a toothless grin. "See, lady. I told you so. Now if you'll let me go. I didn't want to come here in the first place."
The woman turned to the cafeteria manager and smiled. "Sir, are you familiar with Eddy and Associates, the banking firm down the street?"
"Of course I am," the manager answered impatiently. "They hold their weekly meetings in one of my banquet rooms."
"And do you make a good profit from providing food at the weekly meetings?"
"What business is that of yours?"
"I, sir, am Penelope Eddy, president and CEO of the company."
"Oh."
The woman smiled again. "I thought that might make a difference." She glanced at the cop who was busy stifling a giggle. "Would you like to join us in a cup of coffee and a meal, officer?"
"No thanks, ma'am," the officer replied. "I'm on duty."
"Then, perhaps, a cup of coffee to go?"
"Yes, ma'am. That would be very nice."
The cafeteria manager turned on his heel. "I'll get your coffee for you right away, officer."
The officer watched him walk away. "You certainly put him in his place," he said.
"That was not my intent. Believe it or not, I have a reason for all this." She sat down at the table across from her amazed dinner guest. She stared at him intently. "Jack, do you remember me?"
Old Jack searched her face with his old, rheumy eyes "I think so -- I mean you do look familiar."
"I'm a little older perhaps," she said. "Maybe I've even filled out more than in my younger days when you worked here, and I came through that very door, cold and hungry."
"Ma'am?" the officer said questioningly. He couldn't believe that such a magnificently turned out woman could ever have been hungry.
"I was just out of college," the woman began. "I had come to the city looking for a job, but I couldn't find anything. Finally I was down to my last few cents and had been kicked out of my apartment. I walked the streets for days. It was February and I was cold and nearly starving. I saw this place and walked in on the off chance that I could get something to eat."
Jack lit up with a smile. "Now I remember," he said. "I was behind the serving counter. You came up and asked me if you could work for something to eat. I said that it was against company policy."
"I know," the woman continued. "Then you made me the biggest roast beef sandwich that I had ever seen, gave me a cup of coffee, and told me to go over to a corner table and enjoy it. I was afraid that you would get into trouble. Then, when I looked over, I saw you put the price of my food in the cash register. I knew then that everything would be all right."
"So you started your own business?" Old Jack said.
"I got a job that very afternoon. I worked my way up. Eventually I started my own business that, with the help of God, prospered." She opened her purse and pulled out a business card. "When you are finished her e, I want you to pay a visit to a Mr. Lyons. He's the personnel director of my company. I'll go talk to him now and I'm certain he'll find something for you to do around the office." She smiled. "I think he might even find the funds to give you a little advance so that you can buy some clothes and get a place to live until you get on your feet And if you ever need anything, my door is always opened to you."
There were tears in the old man's eyes. "How can I ever thank you," he said.
"Don't thank me," the woman answered. "To God goes the glory. Thank Jesus. He led me to you."
Outside the cafeteria, the officer and the woman paused at the entrance before going their separate ways. "Thank you for all your help, officer," she said.
"On the contrary, Ms. Eddy," he answered. "Thank you. I saw a miracle today, something that I will never forget. And... And thank you for the coffee."
She frowned. "I forgot to ask you whether you used cream or sugar. That's black."
The officer looked at the steaming cup of coffee in his hand. "Yes, I do take cream and sugar -- perhaps more sugar than is good for me." He patted his ample stomach.
"I'm sorry," she said.
"I don't need it now," he replied smiling. "I've got the feeling that this coffee you bought me is going to taste as sweet as sugar."
"The e-mail Bag"
Three boys are in the school yard bragging about their fathers. The first boy says, 'My Dad scribbles a few words on a piece of paper, he calls it a poem, they give him $50.'
The second boy says, 'That's nothing. My Dad scribbles a few words on piece of paper, he calls it a song, they give him $100.'
The third boy says, 'I got you both beat. My Dad scribbles a few words on a piece of paper, he calls it a sermon, and it takes eight people to collectall the money!'
An elderly woman died last month. Having never married, she requested no male pallbearers. In her handwritten instructions for her memorial service, she wrote, 'They wouldn't take me out while I was alive, I don't want them to take me out when I'm dead.'
A police recruit was asked during the exam, 'What would you do if you had to arrest your own mother?' He answered, 'Call for backup..'
"Daily Motivations"
If you don't care, your customer never will. -- Marlene Blaszczyk
Applying “The Pareto Principle” to Your Goals
Vilfredo Pareto was a 19th-century Italian social scientist and critic. He observed that 80% of the wealth in Italy, at the time, was concentrated in 20% of the population – something he felt that was not good for society. While the genesis of his work is very seldom discussed, his name lives on in what is known as The Pareto Principle, or “the 80/20 rule” – a concept that is a relevant today as it was when it was first developed.
Talk to contemporary entrepreneurs and most will tell you that 80% of their business comes from 20% of their customers. Human resources executives will typically suggest that 80% of the employee relations problems and issues they have to deal with come from just 20% of the employees. And most business managers would agree that it’s a minority of their team members who are responsible for a majority of the innovation, creativity, and superior work their organizations enjoy. In all of these examples, the Pareto Principle suggests that we should pay attention to, and focus our efforts on, the critical few (the 20%) rather than the trivial or average many (the 80%).
So what does all this have to do with you and your goals? A lot! There’s a myriad of things you can do in pursuit of your professional and personal objectives. A large number of them fall into the 80% – the “trivial many.” A much smaller number fall in the “critical few” category – the important 20%.
Take a look at your goals and the action plans you’ve developed for meeting them. What are you doing? How are you investing your precious time? What do your past experiences – and the experiences of others – tell you? Are you focusing on “need to do,” high payback activities – or on less important, “like to do” tasks? Remember it’s that “critical few” that will propel you furthest and give you the most bang for your time an energy buck. When in doubt, think W-W-P-D (What Would Pareto Do?).
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, He gives freedom". (2 Corinthians 3:17)
I am thankful God does not change what He says based on opinion polls or focus groups. His words and commands are timeless. They apply to every culture, race, and nationality.
That is why the Bible has remained relevant throughout the ages. What God says is always pertinent. It never becomes obsolete. His timeless truth is the surest foundation.
Almost to a man, the founding fathers of the United States sought to serve and glorify Jesus Christ with their lives. One study reviewed 15,000 writings by the founding fathers. It found that 94 percent of all quotes either directly or indirectly cited the Bible. Fifty-two of the 55 framers of the Constitution were self-avowed Christians. They even dedicated this new republic to His honor and glory.
The efforts of our founding fathers produced miraculous results. The United States Constitution is currently the oldest operating document of any government in the world. The liberties it guarantees are greater than the liberties granted to the citizens of any other nation. And all this sprang from God's unchanging principles based on His unchanging character communicated through His unchanging Word.
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, and the man who guided America through a civil war, stated, "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book."
"The Patriot Post"
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." -- John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1757
"To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted." -- Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, December, 1791
"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" -- George Washington, letter to James Warren, March 31, 1779
"Rick Santorum"
Muddled on Democracy: The Case of Honduras
The military-enforced removal of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 has generated a widespread wringing of hands across the globe, as leaders of both nations and international watchdog organizations once again find themselves debating the means and methods of democratic rule. Does the buck really stop at free and so-called "fair" elections? Or is a certain accountability beyond that initial vote needed for liberal democracies to flourish and protect its citizens?
It appears that the spread of Chavismo has confused the debate, infecting even the international media and U.S. policymakers, too many of whom for too long condemned the removal of the corrupt and reckless Zelaya as a "coup d'état." What we really have going on here is national treason at the highest level, with the very Constitution of Honduras having been flagrantly disregarded by the man elected to defend it. Where was all of the uproar about "democracy" 48 hours before Zelaya was removed from office, when he sidestepped judicial rulings and constitutional law? Last time I checked, being elected "democratically" was no license to overthrow the law.
Hasty declarations from the U.S. have been damaging, and it has taken too long for the Honduran patriots to get their side of the story out. Hillary Clinton made some mild rhetorical improvements in her press conference on Tuesday, but time will tell what these U.S.-endorsed negotiations with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias produce. In the meantime, I want to present you with the bare facts of the situation as it has progressed since last fall. May they speak for themselves, and may they speak for the Honduran people.
November 11, 2008
Honduran President Manuel Zelaya announces that he is seeking a fourth ballot box to be installed at polling places nationwide for November 29, 2009, one which offers to hold a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution and allow him to run for reelection.
March 24, 2009
Zelaya issues executive decree PCM-05-2009 (without publishing the full text) for the National Statistical Institute to hold the national referendum by June 28, 2009. In Honduras, with a congressional majority the president can amend the constitution without any referendum. However, eight articles, including term limits and process of presidential succession cannot be amended. Because the president can amend 368 of 375 articles without any constituent assembly, it can be assumed that Zelaya’s underlying motive is to extend his rule.
Late Spring 2009
The Honduran Armed Forces initially pledge support to the President and commander in chief, providing logistical support for the referendum. Zelaya begins to press for a non-binding survey (commonly referred to as a referendum by the international media), which purports to assess the population’s desire for a National Constituent Assembly.
Tuesday, June 23
The Supreme Court of Honduras, Congress, the country's attorney general, and the supreme electoral tribunal oppose the poll. The Honduran army informs the president they will not support the referendum.
Thursday, June 25
The president fires the head of the armed forces, and ignores a Supreme Court ruling ordering him to reinstate five-star General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez. Congress (including Zelaya’s own party) begins discussing grounds for impeachment. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez complains that ''there is a coup d'etat under way in Honduras,'' led by the “retrograde bourgeoisie.''
Friday, June 26
President Zelaya, along with a thousand of his paid activists, drives to the Honduras Air Force base in Tegucigalpa, where the survey’s material is being stored (having originally been flown in from Venezuela). Disobeying a court order, Zelaya robs the material and takes it to another location, facing little resistance with the intimidation of his surrounding mob. The Supreme Court orders the military to arrest Zelaya, and authorizes them to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest.
Saturday, June 27
Thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule march through the capital city. The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the military recommend that voters stay home for the sake of safety and fairness.
Sunday, June 28
At 5:30 a.m., President Zelaya is seized by soldiers acting on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, and taken to an air force base, before he is exiled to Costa Rica. The Honduran Congress officially votes out Zelaya and replaces him with Roberto Micheletti, the former president of Congress. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez threatens to invade Honduras.
Monday, June 29
Chávez, along with the leaders of Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, gather in Managua to discuss the situation. Chavez alludes to his belief that America was involved in the so-called “coup d'état.” Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua announce their plan to suspend overland trade with Honduras for 48 hours. Even U.S.. President Barack Obama says that "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras.” The new Honduran government expresses its resolve to remain in power.
Tuesday, June 30
The UN General Assembly votes unanimously to denounce the coup. The Organization of American States (OAS) holds an emergency session. Thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule continue to march through Tegucigalpa.
Wednesday, July 1
Zelaya addresses the United Nations, while the OAS Secretary-General threatens to suspend Honduras’s membership unless the new government reinstates Zelaya within three days. Honduras’s interim president Roberto Micheletti says his government is open to “dialogue” with Manuel Zelaya, but denies the possibility of backing down.
Thursday, July 2
Zelaya meets with leaders from Panama and Venezuela to discuss the coup. Thousands of the new government’s supporters march in Sand Pedro Sula, while thousands of Zelaya’s supporters gather in Tegucigalpa. The European Union announces its decision to remove all EU ambassadors from Honduras, and the U.S. suspends part of its aid program to Honduras.
Friday, July 3
The OAS president visits Honduras in order to attempt to restore Zelaya to power, but the new Honduran government rejects threats to reinstate Zelaya.
Saturday, July 4
The OAS votes unanimously to suspend Honduras’ membership.
Sunday, July 5
The Honduran police block Zelaya, along with the UN president, from flying into Tegucigalpa. At least one person is killed as police disperse the crowds of Zelaya’s supporters. Micheletti expresses a desire to negotiate with the OAS.
Monday, July 6
Thousands of Zelaya supporters march to the presidential palace to protest the new government. A group of Honduran businesspeople fly to Washington to advocate for the new government and maintain their trading ability.
Tuesday, July 7
Secretary Clinton meets with Zelaya in Washington, D.C., and announces Zelaya’s and Micheletti’s acceptance of a U.S.-endorsed mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, to try to resolve their conflict.
Wednesday, July 8
Zelaya clarifies and says that he has no intention of negotiating with the interim government: “It’s simply listening through a mediator…to see how they are planning their departure.”
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Program to Protect America's Freedom
1015 15th Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
"Simple Truths"
The Simple Truths of Service
http://www.stservicemovie.com/
"Thoughts"
By: Floyd Wood
Life isn't waiting for the storm to pass; it's learning to dance in the rain---
The best way to save face is to keep the bottom half of it closed---
The best way to kill time is to work it to death.
One loyal friend is worth a dozen relatives.
A psychologist is selling a video for $12.95 that teaches you about your dog's IQ. If you buy the video ; it proves your dog is smarter than you are..
"Liberty Counsel"
Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org
July 13, 2009
Is Sotomayor an Activist Policymaker or a Neutral Umpire? Follow our LIVE BLOG at 10 a.m.
The confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor begin today at 10 a.m. before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Liberty Counsel will blog the entire hearing at www.LC.org.
President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retired Justice David Souter. The Democratic-led Senate has rushed these hearings before there has been adequate time to evaluate Sotomayor’s past rulings and statements.
She was actively involved on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1980-1992, while the group supported the abortion rights group, NOW, and other extreme groups, such as ACORN.
Since that time, Sotomayor openly admits that she judges using personal prejudice rather than impartial neutrality.
Read our News Release for more details about Sotomayor's record, then follow our LIVE BLOG starting at 10 a.m.
Forward this email to your list of family and friends, and encourage them to join the blog and to subscribe to our Liberty Alert email update.
Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.
Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854
"The Web"
Clear Conscience Health Care
http://www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org/
Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital
There is so much evidence to substantiate that President Obama may have been born in Kenya, rather than being a "natural born citizen", as required by the US Constitution. President Obama professes to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The fact is that in 1961, it is my belief that every state in America issued a true "Birth Certificate", specifically if born in a certified hospital. If President Obama was born in any hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, why can an authentic "Birth Certificate" not be found? Why do leaders in the Democrat Party fail to require certification? Is partisan politics more important than our US Constitution? - oyh
Uploaded by: admin
Myth-busting Web site, news articles say president not born in location he claims
By Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://usjf.net/archives/1270#more-1270
More than eight months after Barack Obama was elected president, the mystery surrounding his precise birthplace is deepening as the myth-busting Web site Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and an Obama community blog – directly contradict the president’s own claim regarding the hospital in which he was born.
In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.
Barack Obama states in this letter on White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center on its website.
But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.
In Snopes’ entry concerning allegations that Obama is a “radical Muslim,” the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, “Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
In this July 7, 2009, screenshot of Snopes.com highlighted by WND, the myth-busting website asserts President Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, not the Kapi’olani Medical Center in which Obama claims to have been born.
Within just 90 minutes of the WND report, Snopes swapped the location of the president’s birth from Queen’s to Kapi’olani.
Screenshot of same Snopes.com address on July 8. 2009, reveals Snopes swapped the location of President Obama’s birth from Queen’s Medical Center to the Kapi’olani Medical Center.
It noted some ambiguity by stating, “News accounts have also variously placed his birth as having occurred at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”)
Interestingly, in Snopes’ entry focusing on the natural-born citizenship controversy, no mention is made of the birth hospital.
But Snopes is not alone in asserting Obama was born at a hospital other than the one he personally claims.
A number of news articles published both in the U.S. and abroad name Queen’s Medical Center – not Kapi’olani – as the correct birthplace.
A United Press International report from Nov. 4 states:
“Obama described his birth at Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an ‘all-America’ story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience.”
A July 7, 2009, screenshot of a United Press International story dated Nov. 4, 2008, indicates Barack Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
After this WND story was originally posted, UPI also swapped the hospital of birth to indicate Obama was born at Kapi’olani, as shown here at the same online address:
Screenshot of same UPI.com address on July 8. 2009, reveals UPI swapped the location of President Obama’s birth from Queen’s Medical Center to the Kapi’olani Medical Center.
A November 2004 report from the Rainbow Edition News Letter, published by the Education Laboratory School in Hawaii, noted in its lead sentence:
“Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
This screenshot of the November 2004 edition of the Rainbow Edition News Letter states at its outset Obama was born at Queen’s Medical Center.
Adding a twist to the dispute is a separate claim on the MyBarackObama.com campaign website that lists a genealogy for Obama citing his birthplace as Queen’s Medical Center.
The site documents Obama’s lineage back to his great-great-great grandparents, who lived in the mid-1800s.
It states: “Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas.”
William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress, first listed the birth location at Queen’s.
Kenya’s East African Standard, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled “From Young ‘Barry’ to Top American Senator,” said of Obama: “The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Centre of the University of Hawaii in Manoa.”
But news agencies are hardly unanimous on the exact hospital.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu Advertiser and Washington Post have all published stories indicating Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center, in agreement with the president’s letter to the facility.
But even the Honolulu Advertiser, in a Nov. 9 article, admitted “the hospital where he was born is difficult to document,” as officials clam up while citing federal privacy laws.
“We can’t confirm or deny it – even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital,” said hospital spokeswoman Claire Tong. “Our hands are tied.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions only that Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, but makes no reference to any hospital.
The Associated Press reports that Internet users are far from ignorant about the questions over Obama’s birthplace and documentation.
“Among the top search terms paired with Barack Obama: biography, Israel, news, jokes, stimulus package, birth certificate (related to those persistent but unfounded rumors that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus ineligible to be president.),” the news organization stated.
Makana Shook, corporate communications coordinator for Queen’s, told WND, “The hospital is not allowed to give out any information to the public about patients without the patient’s permission, because of federal HIPAA law restrictions.”
Kapi’olani officials said they would release any documentation they may have about the president’s birth if the president gives his permission to make the documentation public.
The White House did not respond to a WND request for comment.
The question to the White House noted the multiple references to Queen’s. “Then, beginning sometime after the start of 2009, the president and various members of his family, including his sister Maya Soetoro, changed the story and gave interviews (or wrote letters as above) claiming President Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center.
“Why did the president claim to be born at two different hospitals in Hawaii?” WND asked. “Which is the true hospital where the president was born?”
Snopes responded to a WND request for comment about the conflict between its report and Obama’s statement with an automated message that shed no light on the matter.
WND has reported that among the documentation – besides his birth certificate – not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
That may very well be intentional on the part of Obama, who used his first full day in residence in the Oval Office to issue an executive order restricting the release of presidential records.
“Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose presidential records, the attorney general (directly or through the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel) and the counsel to the president shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified,” the order states.
“If either the attorney general or the counsel to the president believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the president by the counsel to the president and the attorney general.”
The result is that the president ultimately would decide if those records can be released.
“After receiving such notice, the archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent president or by a final court order,” the order said.
Meanwhile, there are some who maintain Obama was not born in the U.S. at all as he claims, but in Africa.
An affidavit submitted to WND by Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya, asserts “it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya.”
Shuhubia further states in his affidavit that he visited Obama’s grandmother at her home in the village of Alego-Kogello, on Oct. 16, 2008, in order to conduct a telephone conference interview that would connect with McRae in the United States.
During the telephone interview, McRae specifically asked Sarah Obama two times, “Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya.”
“Both times she specifically replied, ‘Yes,’” Shuhubia affirmed in the affidavit.
“Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States,” Shuhubia continued in the affidavit.
WND also reported the office of Hawaii Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of Obama’s hospital-generated long-form original birth certificate.
The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
By Matt Cover
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718
President Barack Obama looks on as his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday May 26, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais )
(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.
The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”
“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.
“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”
In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.
“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”
The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.
“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”
Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.
“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”
Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.
“Whenever you have a conflict like this, you’re likely to have it end up before the Supreme Court so they can decide the issue. If the Second Amendment is incorporated into the states, it’s going to jeopardize thousands of local gun laws, and the people who supported those gun laws are just freaked about that.”
The Bankrupt Party of Porkulus
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=598830
Let there be no doubt: Democrats are the party with two ideas -- borrow and spend. The only vigorous internal debate on the left revolves around two questions: How much and how much more? Even as the first trillion-dollar stimulus craters, the debt-o-crats are floating yet another grand act of generational theft to create the illusion of jumpstarting the economy.
Call it Spawn of Spendulus. Return of the Porkulus Beast. White House economic adviser Laura D'Andrea Tyson told an international economic conference: "We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus." Team Obama flack Robert Gibbs says the president isn't "ruling anything out, but at the same time he's not ruling anything in." Despite the inconvenient fact that less than 10 percent of the initial stimulus has been spent (or misspent), congressional Democrats remain "open" to the idea of digging a deeper fiscal hole for your children and grandchildren.
Porkulus One was a massive payoff to special interests and political constituencies (and dead people!) disguised as a job generator. A General Accounting Office analysis this week revealed that stimulus dollars allocated to states and localities are not being spent on what they're supposed to be spent on. States are making up their own criteria for spending. The most economically distressed parts of the country are getting shortchanged. School and transportation bureaucrats are using the money to preserve their own jobs instead of "stimulating" others. And assessments of the stimulative effect of the package are a joke. As House Republicans noted: "The administration has essentially 'rigged the game' of reporting the tangible effects of its stimulus program by creating an immeasurable metric -- 'jobs created or saved' -- that no one can disprove."
Irked by the mounting evidence of stimulus failure, Vice President Joe Biden griped at a spending event on Thursday: "This ain't about swimming pools and Frisbee parks and polar bear exhibits. This is about stuff that not only passed the test of jobs, but passed the smell test....All the talk about how we're gonna waste all this money, that's a dog that ain't barked yet. And it's not gonna bark on my watch." Yet last month, Sen. Tom Coburn exposed 100 smelly stimulus projects worth $5.5 billion, including $3.4 million for a wildlife "eco-passage" in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway; nearly $10 million to renovate an unused train station; and a $2 million "weatherization" contract awarded to a Nevada nonprofit recently fired for doing the same type of work.
After failing to recognize the inevitable and inexorable political forces that turned the stimulus into the mother of all Beltway boondoggles, media outlets are now playing catch up:
- USA Today reported this week that "counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain."
- ABC News reported this week that the failed stimulus tracking website run by the White House, Recovery.gov, will get an additional $18 million taxpayer-funded injection to support a "redesign." The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso points out that the contract was awarded to a Maryland firm whose donors have contributed $19,000 to Maryland's House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
- The Washington Times reported this week that "as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse" in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's backyard.
- And despite all the initial focus on basic infrastructure needs, Land Line magazine reported this week that "even with federal stimulus spending that put shovels in the ground on new infrastructure projects, analysts predict an overall decline of 4.3 percent on infrastructure in 2009."
The same underhanded, transparency-defying, earmark-stuffing process that marked the porkulus beast is dominating every other pricey piece of legislation hurtling through the Democrat-led Congress. The Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that passed the House two weeks ago contained bribes galore -- including a $50 million hurricane research center for Florida Democrat Alan Grayson and a $3.5 billion economic development "sweetener" package for Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur. The current healthcare takeover proposals feature a crucial payoff to Big Labor -- a golden exemption from any tax on union members' generous health care benefits.
The friends and patrons of Obama may be making out like bandits. But for everyone else, the Democrats' ideological bankruptcy comes at a nauseatingly steep price.
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."
Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!
Ginsburg responded:
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
When pressed to explain what she meant by reproductive rights needing to be straightened out, Ginsburg said, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."
Asked if that meant getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion such as a waiting period, the justice said she was "not a big fan of these tests."
I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman's decision. It's entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn't mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Three years ago, Ginsburg received some embarrassing national attention when she napped Actual artist rendition of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asleep during a hearing in 2006 on the bench during a court hearing.
"Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge," reported Gina Holland of the Associated Press.
The incident caught the attention of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who said:
"At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning – not denied by a court spokeswoman – Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.
What is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act?
It is a law that was adopted by the United States Congress and was signed into law by President Bush. What it seeks to do is, "to protect unborn children from assault and murder." It inserts provisions in the criminal code that make it a separate crime to kill a fetus in the womb. It uses language, such as "unborn children" and "child in utero" that defines the child in the womb as a human being.
The bill would make it a crime to kill or injure an unborn child during an act of violence committed against a pregnant woman. "We believe that when you have violence against a pregnant woman, you have essentially two victims. Obviously the mother is a victim, but you also have the unborn child as a victim and we believe there should be a separate penalty."
Pro-choice groups say the bill aims to undermine abortion rights. Such groups support the Motherhood Protection Act, which pushes additional penalties for violent crimes against women without recognizing fetuses as separate people. However the unborn child should be recognized as a victim. It's not about pushing the pro-life agenda. It's not about abortion. "This is about protecting unborn children, pregnant mothers. And it hasn't been controversial in those states where we do have it on the books. Unfortunately we still do not have this bill after trying for the past ten years, thanks in part to very powerful members of the North Carolina General Assembly such as Rep. Deborah Ross (Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net) and Rep. Joe Hackney "speaker of the house". (Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net).
In fact there have been almost no problems with it. So I think it's a common sense measure. My guess is, if we can get the NC House as well as the NC Senate to pass this, in a few years time people will look back and wonder what all the controversy was all about."
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I strongly believe that the involuntary termination of a pregnancy through violence or other premeditated act must be treated as a violent felony. Under current state law, an unborn child is not considered a legal victim of a crime. In the case of homicide, North Carolina literally allows criminals to get away with murder.
Sadly, murder has become the number one cause of death for pregnant women in America. An estimated one in five women will be abused during their pregnancy. Women who choose to have their babies are dying (and, so are their babies) because of their choice. And most of the assailants are the fathers of the unborn children.
Violent attacks on pregnant women in North Carolina have increased since 2000 and highlight the deficiency in current law and the need for reform.
36 states currently have this law on the books, including States with a more liberal representation such as California. Scott Peterson of California was sentenced to death by lethal injection in March 2005 after he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn child, Laci and Conner, and dumping their bodies in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.
The Peterson case resulted in the passage of a national law and measures in state legislatures to provide more protection and justice for pregnant women and their unborn children when they are killed or injured in an attack.
The Justice For All Coalition "www.thejusticeforallcoalition.com" will continue to travel the state and educate the public, as well as put pressure on these powerful legislatures who represent their special interest groups rather than their constituents until this bill is signed into law.
As the organizer of this organization I need your help emailing these lawmakers or calling them.
Rep. Deborah Ross- 919-733-5773
Rep. Joe Hackney-919-733-3451
Together we can make North Carolina a safer state to live, work, and raise our families.
Jeff Gerber
Monroe,NC
704-564-0065
www.thejusticeforallcoalition.com
Kindness
by Author Unknown
One day a woman was walking down the street when she spied a beggar sitting on the corner. The man was elderly, unshaven, and ragged. As he sat there, pedestrians walked by him giving him dirty looks They clearly wanted nothing to do with him because of who he was -- a dirty, homeless man. But when she saw him, the woman was moved to compassion.
It was very cold that day and the man had his tattered coat -- more like an old suit coat rather than a warm coat -- wrapped around him. She stopped and looked down. "Sir?" she asked. "Are you all right?"
The man slowly looked up. This was a woman clearly accustomed to the finer things of life. Her coat was new. She looked like that she had never missed a meal in her life. His first thought was that she wanted to make fun of him, like so many others had done before. "Leave me alone," he growled.
To his amazement, the woman continued standing. She was smiling -- her even white teeth displayed in dazzling rows. "Are you hungry?" she asked.
"No," he answered sarcastically. "I've just come from dining with the president. Now go away."
The woman's smile became even broader. Suddenly the man felt a gentle hand under his arm. "What are you doing, lady?" the man asked angrily. "I said to leave me alone."
Just then a policeman came up. "Is there any problem, ma'am?" he asked.
"No problem here, officer," the woman answered. "I'm just trying to get this man to his feet. Will you help me?"
The officer scratched his head. "That's old Jack. He's been a fixture around here for a couple of years. What do you want with him?"
"See that cafeteria over there?" she asked. "I'm going to get him something to eat and get him out of the cold for awhile."
"Are you crazy, lady?" the homeless man resisted. "I don't want to go in there!" Then he felt strong hands grab his other arm and lift him up. "Let me go, officer. I didn't do anything."
"This is a good deal for you, Jack," the officer answered. "Don't blow it."
Finally, and with some difficulty, the woman and the police officer got Jack into the cafeteria and sat him at a table in a remote corner. It was the middle of the morning, so most of the breakfast crowd had already left and the lunch bunch had not yet arrived. The manager strode across the cafeteria and stood by the table. "What's going on here, officer?" he asked. "What is all this. Is this man in trouble?"
"This lady brought this man in here to be fed," the policeman answered.
"Not in here!" the manager replied angrily. "Having a person like that here is bad for business."
Old Jack smiled a toothless grin. "See, lady. I told you so. Now if you'll let me go. I didn't want to come here in the first place."
The woman turned to the cafeteria manager and smiled. "Sir, are you familiar with Eddy and Associates, the banking firm down the street?"
"Of course I am," the manager answered impatiently. "They hold their weekly meetings in one of my banquet rooms."
"And do you make a good profit from providing food at the weekly meetings?"
"What business is that of yours?"
"I, sir, am Penelope Eddy, president and CEO of the company."
"Oh."
The woman smiled again. "I thought that might make a difference." She glanced at the cop who was busy stifling a giggle. "Would you like to join us in a cup of coffee and a meal, officer?"
"No thanks, ma'am," the officer replied. "I'm on duty."
"Then, perhaps, a cup of coffee to go?"
"Yes, ma'am. That would be very nice."
The cafeteria manager turned on his heel. "I'll get your coffee for you right away, officer."
The officer watched him walk away. "You certainly put him in his place," he said.
"That was not my intent. Believe it or not, I have a reason for all this." She sat down at the table across from her amazed dinner guest. She stared at him intently. "Jack, do you remember me?"
Old Jack searched her face with his old, rheumy eyes "I think so -- I mean you do look familiar."
"I'm a little older perhaps," she said. "Maybe I've even filled out more than in my younger days when you worked here, and I came through that very door, cold and hungry."
"Ma'am?" the officer said questioningly. He couldn't believe that such a magnificently turned out woman could ever have been hungry.
"I was just out of college," the woman began. "I had come to the city looking for a job, but I couldn't find anything. Finally I was down to my last few cents and had been kicked out of my apartment. I walked the streets for days. It was February and I was cold and nearly starving. I saw this place and walked in on the off chance that I could get something to eat."
Jack lit up with a smile. "Now I remember," he said. "I was behind the serving counter. You came up and asked me if you could work for something to eat. I said that it was against company policy."
"I know," the woman continued. "Then you made me the biggest roast beef sandwich that I had ever seen, gave me a cup of coffee, and told me to go over to a corner table and enjoy it. I was afraid that you would get into trouble. Then, when I looked over, I saw you put the price of my food in the cash register. I knew then that everything would be all right."
"So you started your own business?" Old Jack said.
"I got a job that very afternoon. I worked my way up. Eventually I started my own business that, with the help of God, prospered." She opened her purse and pulled out a business card. "When you are finished her e, I want you to pay a visit to a Mr. Lyons. He's the personnel director of my company. I'll go talk to him now and I'm certain he'll find something for you to do around the office." She smiled. "I think he might even find the funds to give you a little advance so that you can buy some clothes and get a place to live until you get on your feet And if you ever need anything, my door is always opened to you."
There were tears in the old man's eyes. "How can I ever thank you," he said.
"Don't thank me," the woman answered. "To God goes the glory. Thank Jesus. He led me to you."
Outside the cafeteria, the officer and the woman paused at the entrance before going their separate ways. "Thank you for all your help, officer," she said.
"On the contrary, Ms. Eddy," he answered. "Thank you. I saw a miracle today, something that I will never forget. And... And thank you for the coffee."
She frowned. "I forgot to ask you whether you used cream or sugar. That's black."
The officer looked at the steaming cup of coffee in his hand. "Yes, I do take cream and sugar -- perhaps more sugar than is good for me." He patted his ample stomach.
"I'm sorry," she said.
"I don't need it now," he replied smiling. "I've got the feeling that this coffee you bought me is going to taste as sweet as sugar."
"The e-mail Bag"
Three boys are in the school yard bragging about their fathers. The first boy says, 'My Dad scribbles a few words on a piece of paper, he calls it a poem, they give him $50.'
The second boy says, 'That's nothing. My Dad scribbles a few words on piece of paper, he calls it a song, they give him $100.'
The third boy says, 'I got you both beat. My Dad scribbles a few words on a piece of paper, he calls it a sermon, and it takes eight people to collectall the money!'
An elderly woman died last month. Having never married, she requested no male pallbearers. In her handwritten instructions for her memorial service, she wrote, 'They wouldn't take me out while I was alive, I don't want them to take me out when I'm dead.'
A police recruit was asked during the exam, 'What would you do if you had to arrest your own mother?' He answered, 'Call for backup..'