ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100113

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

"Education commences at the mother's knee, and every word spoken within the hearsay of little children tends towards the formation of character." -- Hosea Ballou

Employees have a simple yet accurate way of figuring out what's important at work. They just look at what their leaders pay attention to — what the bosses talk about and focus on. -- Eric Harvey

"Remember that everyone you meet is afraid of something, loves something, and has lost something." -- H. Jackson Brown Jr.



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

Forgive us our sins, just as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us. (Matthew 6:12)

Peter asked Jesus how many times he had to forgive someone. Peter thought that forgiving seven times was pretty good. "No!" Jesus answered, "seventy times seven!" Then Jesus gave an illustration showing how God views our responsibility to forgive.

A king became aware that one of his servants owed him a significant amount, so he ordered the servant brought before him and demanded the servant pay every penny. The servant could not pay so the king ordered the man and his family sold into slavery to pay the debt. The servant fell before the king and pleaded for mercy. The king felt pity and forgave him the tremendous debt.

The servant found a fellow servant who owed him and demanded payment. The friend begged for mercy, but the servant would not forgive him and had him thrown into prison.

When the king heard about it, he was angry! He called in the servant and demanded to know why he had acted so unforgiving toward his friend when he had been forgiven so much. Then the king commanded the servant be thrown into prison until he had paid every penny.

God gave His only Son to die in our place. That is mercy beyond comprehension. How, then, can we ever refuse to give mercy to others when we have received so much mercy ourselves. To the degree that we show mercy to the poor, the wretched, and the guilty, we are like God.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Since God richly lavishes His mercy on us, we must show mercy to one another. And that means letting go of all those old hurts caused by others.



"The Patriot Post"

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... [I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, 1789

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46



The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

Gabriel Duvall

SOLDIER; JUDGE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; COMPTROLLER OF THE U. S. TREASURY; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty Who gave it, in humble hopes of His mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ.29

Endnotes

29. From his last will and testament, attested on September 21, 1840.



"AFA"

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Unsubscribe Online Version

It is time for us to declare our convictions!

Sign the Manhattan Declaration today. I did.

Christians across the nation are signing the new Manhattan Declaration in an effort to let our leaders and the culture know that we will not be silenced! We hope this Declaration grows into a major movement to defend, as never before, life, marriage, and religious liberties. To that end, your AFA, along with over 200 Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox leaders have signed the Manhattan Declaration and I am urging you to read and sign this Declaration that was penned by three authors including Chuck Colson.

When you sign the Manhattan Declaration, here’s what you will be affirming (summary):

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are: (1) the sanctity of life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

I hope you will sign the Declaration today. But it’s not enough to just sign – you need to read it, study it, and learn how to defend these truths in the public square. We encourage you to forward this email to your friends and encourage them to sign as well.

In addition, please take advantage of these Downloadable Resources:

(1) the Declaration;
(2) Worldview Resource Directory;
(3) A Guide for Study and Discussion;
(4) Signatory Sheet; and
(5) Official Summary of the Declaration that can be downloaded, copied and given away.

Sign the Manhattan Declaration today!

It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.

Sincerely,

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association Help us Financially
Donate Online to AFA

One-Time Monthly
$25 $15
$50 $30
$100
(free gift) $50
Washington, DC Tour with Tim Wildmon

Join Tim and Christian historian Stephen McDowell as they see Washington and Mount Vernon in 2010.

spiritualheritagetours.com



"The Web"

Move Your Money

WATCH THIS VIDEO, ENTER ZIP CODE.. THEN YOU DECIDE. INFO ABOUT YOUR BANK RATINGS

http://moveyourmoney.info/



Morning Bell: $787 Billion in Stimulus, Zero Jobs “Created or Saved”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/12/morning-bell-787-billion-in-stimulus-zero-jobs-created-or-saved/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

On February 11th, President Barack Obama stood on a windy hilltop in front of a dusty construction site in Fairfax County, Virginia, and promised the American people: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021102326.html “Here in Virginia, my plan will create or save almost 100,000 jobs, doing work at sites just like this one.” Standing alongside current Democratic National Committee Chairman and former-Gov. Tim Kaine, the President continued: “Where we’re standing, that could mean hundreds of construction jobs. And the benefits of jobs we create directly will multiply across the economy.” Eleven months later, none of those promised jobs have been “created or saved.” In fact, the Obama administration quietly announced http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/white-house-changes-stimulus-jobs-count-111last week that they were dropping the fraudulent “saved or created” terminology altogether.

The failure of Obama’s $787 billion stimulus is particularly acute in Virginia where, as Heritage fellow Ron Utt has documented http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2355.cfm, despite $695 million in allocated infrastructure funding, only 16% of designated projects had begun. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) even publicly complained about Virginia’s slow transportation spending, writing to Gov. Kaine: “your state ranks last among all states [51 out of 51, including the District of Columbia], based on an analysis of the percentage of Recovery Act highway formula funds put out to bid, under contract and under way.”

But even where infrastructure spending has been spent, the hard evidence shows that there has not been any positive effect on unemployment. According to an Associated Press analysis http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100111/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_unemployment reviewed by independent economists at five universities, the $20 billion spent nationwide on infrastructure so far “has had no effect on local unemployment rates.” And this was just the most recent embarrassing headline for the White House’s signature economic policy. Since the first reporting deadline in October, newspapers and other media outlets across the country have identified 94,341 fake jobs reported by the Obama administration as jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus. After the Government Accountability Office issued a report http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gao-50000-jobs-stimulus-projects-spent-money/story?id=9117506 finding “significant reporting and processing problems that need to be addressed,” Obama administration spokesman Ed Pound offered http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/recoverygov_web_site_errors_fu.html this defense of the Obama administration’s jobs numbers: “Who knows, man, who really knows.”

Now Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag issued a little-noticed memo http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-08.pdf last month ending the “saved or created” metric and instead directing agencies to count only jobs “funded” by stimulus dollars. But as Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz tells ProPublica http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/white-house-changes-stimulus-jobs-count-111, this is not really an improvement: “I just think it’s a silly exercise.” Instead Katz says http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/white-house-changes-stimulus-jobs-count-111 a more accurate way to account for the effect of the stimulus is to look at the unemployment numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is a great idea http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17/morning-bell-the-fake-jobs-of-obamas-failed-stimulus/. The latest BLS report http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm issued last Friday found that the U.S. economy dropped 85,000 jobs in December, bringing the jobs lost total to 2.7 million since the stimulus was passed and 3.4 million since Obama became President http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/08/jobs-decline-in-december-as-obama-jobs-deficit-continues-to-climb/. In contrast, the President’s White House Council of Economic Advisers had promised total employment of at least 138.6 million by 2010. Actual employment as of December was reported to be 130.9 million, leaving the Obama jobs deficit at 7.7 million http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/08/jobs-decline-in-december-as-obama-jobs-deficit-continues-to-climb/ .

The problem with infrastructure spending as stimulus, and really government spending as stimulus, is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Businesses are telling pollsters http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf that among the biggest reasons they are not creating jobs is the prospect of new tax and regulatory burdens. A better solution http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2748.cfm to reduce unemployment is to simplify and reduce the barriers to business success.



Obama Must Know His Spending Yields Bankruptcy, Not Growth

by David Limbaugh

Could we all agree that we are doomed as a nation if President Barack Obama continues his deficit spending at unprecedented levels? Can you think of any reason, then, to justify this spending? Oh, our president says it's to jump-start the economy? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. So what's his real motive?

Obama has been saying from the beginning that his stimulus plan was for the purpose of spurring economic growth -- though when we did have economic growth during the George W. Bush administration, the likes of which Democrats can only fantasize about during Obama's term, they trashed it as a "jobless recovery."

On Jan. 16, 2009 -- about a year ago -- Obama said: "The first job of my administration is to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. That's why I've moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan' that will immediately jump-start job creation and long-term growth." Obama made similar statements repeatedly.

Notice he said "immediately." Here we are a year later at 10 percent unemployment after Obama promised it wouldn't exceed 8 percent. Is anyone holding him accountable for this outrage? Is he humbled? No, he wants a second stimulus, on top of his nationally bankrupting health care and cap-and-trade plans. He has the audacity to demand $75 billion more to stimulate construction jobs. A bill approving the plan has already passed the House, and the Senate is expected to take it up later this month. Unbelievable!

Obama's top economic advisers also said at the time that his stimulus package would create mostly private-sector jobs. We know how that turned out: just the opposite.

Wake up, you Obama holdouts. Obama either is too ideologically blind to understand that his spending elixir isn't working and won't work or doesn't care because his primary goals are a) to redistribute and redirect that money from people who have earned it to people and projects he prefers to have the money and b) to direct the money into organizations and projects that will enhance his and his party's chances for re-election (a slush fund).

Listen. This is not just our ordinary back-and-forth political debate, in which Republicans advocate supply-side tax cuts and liberals advocate their class-warfare wealth- and achievement-punishing confiscatory tax packages. We're way beyond the ordinary parameters of American politics, where the swinging pendulum generally assures liberalism won't march too far forward.

Obama is spending borrowed money so fast there will be no way to pay it back without severe economic pain, the kind that will eclipse any possible economic growth that could come from his spending in the first place -- if it were to work as he has promised, which it won't and can't.

The Associated Press just reported that 10 months into Obama's stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely has helped the beleaguered construction industry. It didn't matter whether a lot of money was spent or no money was spent; local unemployment rates rose and fell completely apart from the injection of stimulus dollars. The AP's analysis was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, who confirmed the stimulus strategy isn't working.

We shouldn't need to provide the theoretical reasons government spending doesn't work in order to convince skeptics, because we have abundant empirical evidence that it doesn't and never has, including FDR's New Deal.

But for you stubborn types, Heritage Foundation scholar Brian Riedl argues that the theory behind such spending is flawed. He has just published a paper explaining why these programs don't work.

Obama's stimulus strategy is based on Keynesian economic theory, which holds that an economic recession characterized by demand's falling below supply can be corrected through government spending. Keynesian models assume that government spending adds money to the economy, so it almost doesn't matter where the money is spent; it will stimulate economic growth.

Not so fast, says Riedl. "Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed," he says. (Now that's the understatement of the new year). "Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another." (Hint: Obama knows that!)

Folks, it would be bad enough for Obama to have spent this money borrowed from future generations if it did stimulate the economy. We still couldn't justify economic growth on the backs of our children and grandchildren. But his plan doesn't work. What does that tell you?

Truly, it's amazing his approval rating is in double digits.



Copenhagen: Travelgate part Deux

http://texan2driver.wordpress.com/

So this was the real reason for Copenhagen, at least as far as the liberal/progressives were concerned. They just wanted to go party on our dime to celebrate their destruction of capitalism, liberty, and the American way of life. Notice I said liberal/progressive, and not just democrat. There were a few RINO’s on the trip as well.

If CBS is actually reporting this story, you know it has to be much worse than they are letting on. They don’t exactly have a strong track record of being unbiased when it comes to reporting on liberals.

We all have to sacrifice, pay penance, do our fair share, and all the other crap the liberals are saying we have to do. Only they aren’t doing THEIR fair share. They are more than willing to TAKE OUR fair share for their own benefit. They view themselves as royalty. They are just trying on the oligarchy that they are trying to build on for size.

I guess the $5,000 per year pay raise they got this year to add to their already large 6-figure salaries just wasn’t enough to buy their own plane tickets. Oh, the poor, poor politicians. Their lives are so hard.

Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?

Exclusive: At Least 20 Members of Congress Made the Trip to Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Last Month

By Sharyl Attkisson

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/cbsnews_investigates/main6084364.shtml

(CBS) Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.

CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.

They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.

That's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview. Her office said it "will comply with disclosure requirements" but wouldn't give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an "opposing view."

"They're going because it's the biggest party of the year," Sen. Inhofe said. "The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar."

Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a Gulfstream Five -- up to 64 passengers -- traveling in luxurious comfort.

Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.

As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Congressman Barton -- a climate change skeptic -- even brought along his daughter.

(CBS)

Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you.

Three military jets at $9,900 per hour - $168,000 just in flight time.

Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each.

321 hotel nights booked - the bulk at Copenhagen's five-star Marriott.

Meals add tens of thousands more.

Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wasn't against a U.S. presence. But he said, "Every penny counts. Congress should be shaking the couch cushions looking for change, rather than spending cash for everybody to go to Copenhagen."

Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressional presence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the U.S. is serious about climate change.

And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Which means even if Congress didn't get a global agreement - they left an indelible footprint all the same.



Shocked

by Oliver North

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35148

On Wednesday, national security adviser Gen. James Jones warned that we would feel "a certain shock" at revelations in a White House report on what the Obama administration is calling the "failed Christmas terrorist attack." He was referring to the breakdowns that allowed a 23-year-old Nigerian-born, al-Qaida-trained suicide terrorist to nearly bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit. But the stunning information isn't learning "what did we know and when did we know it" leading up to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear. The greatest cause for alarm is in what has happened since.

On Thursday evening -- after multiple delays -- the president stood before a teleprompter in the State Dining Room of the White House to deliver brief "Remarks on Strengthening Intelligence and Aviation Security." He took no questions.

Then, in a "news blitz" that continued on and off the record for more than two hours, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, John Brennan, assistant to the president for counterterrorism, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs provided additional details on what went wrong and the "reforms and corrective steps" needed to prevent a recurrence. Though the so-called mainstream media showered the presentations with accolades, little of what was said Thursday was reassuring. Some of it was downright disingenuous.

Mr. Obama began his remarks by citing "how our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding a plane for America." He subsequently castigated professional intelligence analysts for "a failure to connect the dots of intelligence" and for "a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had."

This assessment ignores a very simple recognition of culpability. It is difficult, if not impossible, for analysts to "connect the dots" when they are being warned not to "jump to conclusions," as Mr. Obama cautioned following Maj. Nidal Hasan's Nov. 5 attack at Fort Hood, in which 13 people were killed. In a remarkably deceptive omission, the president never even mentioned this travesty.

But he did boldly claim, "We will continue to work with Congress to ensure that our intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement communities have the resources they need to keep the American people safe." Yet he never has provided relevant committees of Congress the reports they requested on the Fort Hood massacre, the status of five American college students now detained in Pakistan or information on radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who fled to Yemen from the U.S.

After noting that we have "learned a great deal about the al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen -- called al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" -- the president pointed the finger of blame: "The intelligence community did not aggressively follow up on and prioritize particular streams of intelligence related to a possible attack against the homeland." He also said, "It appears that this incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies."

Nonetheless, he is praised by the press for paraphrasing -- without attribution -- Harry Truman's axiom, saying, "The buck stops with me." Regrettably, he did not acknowledge his efforts to seek "new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect," and his global grand apology tour for America's "past mistakes" has been rebuffed by "our adversaries."

Mr. Obama also is being applauded for acknowledging the obvious: "We are at war." But then he says, "We are at war against al-Qaida, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them."

This assessment is misleading, is far too narrow and ignores who "our adversary" really is. Radical Islamists intent on blowing themselves and others to pieces on the ground in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Madrid, Bali, Amman and London or in the air over our cities are not part of an al-Qaida "network." There are no membership cards for radical Islamists. There is no malevolent mullah exercising central authority over who lives or dies or when some attack will or will not occur. Directing the intelligence community to construct "wire diagrams" of al-Qaida cells in a dozen or more countries won't make us any safer.

Young men like Hasan and Abdulmutallab are under the influence of an ideology based on vicious hatred of all institutions and people not sufficiently Islamic. They will not be placated by promises of "understanding" and "respect." They and their ilk won't be deterred by our shipping detainees from Guantanamo to Illinois or trying them in civil courts instead of treating them as enemy combatants. The Obama administration does not seem to understand this yet. That's the real shock.



ABC Responds to Complaint About Gays

Netlore Archive

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blneugent.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/practice.asp

Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 7:41 PM

Subject: ABC Network and Homosexuality

Hey...the following is a letter I wrote to ABC concerning a program called "THE PRACTICE". One of the lawyer's mother decided she was gay and wanted her son to go to court to help her get a marriage license to marry her 'partner'. I just sent the letter yesterday and really did not expect a reply....but I did....

My original message was:

ABC is obsessed (or should I say abscessed) with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is ok. THE PRACTICE can be a fairly good show but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions.

This type of mentality calls people like me "gay basher". Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it...He and God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers.'

What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel.....is that an alternative lifestyle? (By the way....the Bible speaks against that, too.)

Jim Neugent

Here is their reply.......

The ABC online Webmaster wrote:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says "All Men are Created Equal" - and try treating them that way for a change!? Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your crutch for your existence.

I replied to them......

Thanks for your reply. Evidently, I hit a nerve from your harsh reply. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns.

And....I will be praying for you.

Jim Neugent
Mena, Arkansas



Brown Claims $1.3 Million In Late Senate Donations

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.wbur.org/topics/senate

BOSTON — Republican Scott Brown says he raised $1.3 million in a 24-hour appeal for his U.S. Senate campaign.

The proceeds came in from across the country through a fundraising tool known as a “moneybomb.”

Brown claimed 16,800 people gave an average of $78 to his campaign.

He is claiming momentum in his race against Democrat Martha Coakley for the Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy. Coakley was traveling to Washington Tuesday for her own last-minute fundraiser.

Independent Joseph L. Kennedy – no relation to the senator – is also a candidate in the Jan. 19 election.

Coakley And Brown Debate One Last Time

By FRED THYS

http://www.wbur.org/topics/senate

Candidates for the U.S. Senate seat, Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley, right, make last minute preparations before a debate on the campus of the University of Massachusetts, in Boston, Monday. (AP)

BOSTON — State Sen. Scott Brown was on the attack in Monday night’s debate — the last before the Jan. 19 general election. He took issue with Attorney General Martha Coakley on how terrorist suspects should be tried. He said alleged 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed should be treated as an enemy combatant and not tried in New York.

“To think that we would give people who want to kill us constitutional rights and lawyer them up at our expense instead of treating them as enemy combatants to get as much information as we can under legal means — it just makes no sense to me,” Brown said, “and it shows me that you don’t quite understand the law when it comes to enemy combatants versus terrorists for United States citizens.”

Brown supports the death penalty. Coakley opposes it. He pressed her to say whether, if found guilty, the alleged 9/11 masterminds should get the death penalty. She said yes, because that’s the sentence under federal law.

The candidates disagreed on President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Coakley opposes the president’s decision, and she explained why to moderator David Gergen.

“I’m not sure there is a way to succeed,” Coakley said. “If the goal was, and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore. They’re in Yemen. They’re in Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where al-Qaida is and not always decide we need to…”

“Would you then send troops into Yemen, where al-Qaida is?” Gergen asked.

“No,” Coakley replied. “That’s exactly the point. This is not about sending troops everywhere we think al-Qaida may be.”

Brown pointed out that he and Coakley both support legalized abortion.

“Yet we have a very real difference,” Brown said, “and the difference is I’m against partial-birth abortion, you’re not.”

“That’s not right,” Coakley shot back.

“Martha”, Brown said, “with all due respect, you wrote an editorial that anyone can go online and find where you actually criticized partial-birth abortion, the fact that it’s in fact not allowed. And we also have have a difference in that I don’t believe that federal funding of abortion should be allowed, and I believe in a very strong parental consent notification law.”

In a 2007 op-ed article in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Coakley called a Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on late-term abortions “tragic.” In Monday night’s debate, she came back at Brown by trying to portray him as a social conservative. She questioned him about a proposal he sponsored dealing with emergency care for rape victims.

“Am I wrong, Scott,” Coakley asked, “that the bill you filed allows for emergency personnel to deny care if it’s within their decision?”

“Yes,” Brown answered. “You’re absolutely wrong. It was an amendment…”

“I’m wrong or I’m right?” Coakley persisted.

“You are wrong,” Brown replied.

“What does that amendment do?” Coakley asked.

“I’m not in your courtroom,” Brown answered. “I’m not a defendant. So let me answer the question. The amendment you’re referring to allowed hospitals who had religious preferences not to perform abortions or provide those services.”

In 2005, Brown proposed that hospital personnel be exempted from providing emergency contraception if they had religious objections. His amendment never passed.

Brown came into this debate trailing Coakley. According to most polls, Brown is behind Coakley by as much as 15 points. Monday night provided his chance to change the game, in front of the largest audience of the campaign. He’ll know in a week whether he made enough of an impression for the upset victory he seeks.



Marco Rubio

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/politics/government/marco-rubio-PEPLT007456.topic

Marco Rubio is a politician who rose to one of the most powerful political posts in Florida at a young age, becoming one of the highest-ranking Cuban-Americans in the state. From November 2006 through November 2008, Rubio is speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. That puts him in position to single-handedly stop any piece of proposed legislation. A speaker of the House also has a good chance at turning an agenda into law. A Republican, Marco Rubio champions a conservative, smaller-government approach to government in the Florida state Capitol, in contrast with other elements of the Republican-controlled state government which are more moderate or centrist.

Cuban-Americans in the state. From November 2006 through November 2008, Rubio is speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. That puts him in position to single-handedly stop any piece of proposed legislation. A speaker of the House also has a good chance at turning an agenda into law. A Republican, Marco Rubio champions a conservative, smaller-government approach to government in the Florida state Capitol, in contrast with other elements of the Republican-controlled state government which are more moderate or centrist. Marco Rubio is seen as a politician in the mold of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who advocated more conservative approaches when he was governor of Florida for eight years ending in 2007. During 2007, Marco Rubio championed a major overhaul of the Florida tax system. He wanted to slash property taxes, increase sales taxes, and cut the amount of money going to local governments. His effort failed, although the Florida Legislature passed a more modest plan. Much of what he pushed in his first year as speaker the time when a presiding officer in the Florida Legislature has the greatest influence came from a book of citizen recommendations he published called 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future. Marco Rubio, a resident of West Miami, Florida, was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election on Jan. 25, 2000. He was subsequently re-elected each November. He represents the 111th House District. He was born May 28, 1971, in Miami. He previously served as a City Commissioner of the City of West Miami. Marco Rubio, who is an attorney, has a bachelor's degree from the University of Florida and a law degree from the University of Miami. His official office address is:

The Honorable Marco Rubio, Speaker, Florida House of Representatives,
420 The Capitol, 402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300.

For more information go to http://www.myfloridahouse.gov.



"The e-mail Bag"

An elderly woman had just returned to her home from an evening of Church services ...

... when she was startled by an intruder. She caught the man in the act of robbing her home of its valuables and yelled, "Stop! Acts 2:38!" (Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be

forgiven.) The burglar stopped in his tracks.

The woman calmly called the police and explained what she had done. As the officer cuffed the man to take him in, he asked the burglar, "Why did you just stand there? All the old lady did was yell a scripture to you."

"Scripture?" replied the burglar. "She said she had an Ax and Two 38's!"

Submitted by Don, Hagerstown, Md.