ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091203

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

Only you can make you happy. -- Marty Martinson

"The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so." -- Robert G. Ingersoll



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in Him. (1 John 3:5)

Do you strive to live a pure and holy life? What disciplines help you do that?

In the time of Jesus, there were religious experts called Pharisees. The highest value of life, in their view, was maintaining holiness---which, for them, meant not touching anything or anyone they might consider "unclean." Holiness was a matter of staying on the defense socially, and avoiding certain people entirely.

What really bothered them about Jesus was the way He sought out "unclean" people---those with diseases, those with clear and unmistakable sin in their lives. Wasn't He forfeiting His personal purity by associating with lowly individuals? It seemed an outrage! Yet Jesus led history's holiest life even while seeking out those who needed to see and touch true purity. And in Him, they touched it. Perhaps one of the great secrets of holiness is that it can't be hoarded.

Life demands a certain balance. We don't want to spend time with those who can pull us down; we want to steer clear of temptation. But our holy God wants us to share true purity with those who desperately need it. He wants us to bring healing and hope, just as His Son did.

Your View of God Really Matters …

We are a reflection of God's pure light to an unclean world. How will your light touch the darkness of another life today? Don't hoard your light.



"The Patriot Post"

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." -- Thomas Paine

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785

"[R]eligion, or the duty which we owe to our creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and this is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." -- Virginia Bill of Rights, Article 16, 1776



The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

Samuel Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.10

The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.11

I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.12

He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.13
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.14
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.15
Endnotes

10. From the Last Will & Testament of Samuel Adams, attested December 29, 1790; see also Samuel Adams, Life & Public Services of Samuel Adams, William V. Wells, editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1865), Vol. III, p. 379, Last Will and Testament of Samuel Adams.

11. Letters of Delegates to Congress: August 16, 1776-December 31, 1776, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1979), Vol. 5, pp. 669-670, Samuel Adams to Elizabeth Adams on December 26, 1776.

12. From a Fast Day Proclamation issued by Governor Samuel Adams, Massachusetts, March 20, 1797, in our possession; see also Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 407, from his proclamation of March 20, 1797.


13. Samuel Adams, A Proclamation For a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, given as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from an original broadside in our possession; see also, Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 385, October 14, 1795.

14. Samuel Adams, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 10, 1793.

15. Samuel Adams, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 15, 1796.



"Liberty Counsel"

Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org

December 2, 2009

Liberty Counsel Goes to Court Today Against the ACLU

This afternoon Liberty Counsel returns to federal court in Pensacola, Florida to combat the ACLU’s harassment of teachers, staff and students in the Santa Rosa County School District.

We are representing Christian Educators Association International in an attempt to overturn the court order that was the reason for contempt charges brought against school employees for a mealtime prayer with other adults. Liberty Counsel successfully defended Principal Frank Lay, Athletic Director Robert Freeman, and Michelle Winkler from contempt charges sought by the ACLU.

In a blatant attempt at intimidation, the ACLU recently sent a letter to the school district, complaining of 16 separate instances where it alleges the court order has been violated. The ACLU, sore from its losses, is stalking school employees seeking to punish them. The ACLU is even prying into their personal lives, asking whether they are organizing prayer meetings in their churches regarding the case.

The ACLU is investing enormous amounts of money and resources to terrorize school officials into silence and to make public schools religion-free zones. Pray that these forces of evil will be defeated so that the district employees and students will be set free from unconsitutional restrictions on their freedom.

Our lead trial counsel for this case is attorney Harry Mihet, who suffered persecution as a pastor's son growing up in communist Romania. He understands the risk of losing religious freedom in America.

Litigating against the deep-pocketed ACLU is costly and time-consuming. This case is expected to end tomorrow, but could also extend into Friday. Please pray that Liberty Counsel will have the resources to continue this push-back against the ACLU bullies.

We are honored to have you and other patriotic, God-fearing Americans join this enormous battle with fervert prayer and financial support. As always, to God be the glory.

Read our News Release for more details.

Give a tax-deductible year-end gift to Liberty Counsel to combat the ACLU and preserve religious freedom in America.

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 that 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"

Here is what I sent to "IndianaPatriots" involved with "PatrioticResistance."

By Chuck Sproull

I believe our selection of the next set of American political leaders (President and senators, representatives, and judges) should not be based on party names like democrat (change the "t" to a "p" if you want) or republican, or liberal or conservative. But we should be looking at the core values below the surface that govern each of their outward lives and decisions.

The well-educated John Adams had a deep insight when he wrote "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Immoral "whales" like Obama, Pelosi and Reid are proving the validity of Adam's prophecy.

I believe Adam's concept of "moral and religious people" can be mapped into the concept of "mature" (dictionary definition - "fully developed"). This is more fundamental than religious or political or legal issues, but is more of an emotional issue.

We need leaders whose core values are unselfishness (content with the necessities of life), honesty (love for truth - words that describe reality), courage (to keep learning and face new realities of life), well-educated (including US History and the Bible), humility (to submit to standards that are good for all people, like the Ten Commandments, weights and measures, and traffic regulations...), concern for well-being of others, responsible on the job, moral and self-disciplined (with God's Law written in their hearts), faithful in normal marriage...etc.

Over the past several generations, because of a growing number of negative influences in the homes and public schools (no spanking, no Bible studies, no prayer) I have observed a growing number of immature (not fully developed, uneducated) voters and political leaders, whose
emotional core values are the opposite of "mature." They are selfish (love personal pleasures and wealth, are domineering and abusive), dishonest (change the definitions of good words to disguise their evil behavior), afraid (to face realities of life like the existence of a loving God who wants to save us from all our sins), proud (don't have God's Law written in their hearts so they need strong legal systems to force them to obey standards and laws and to punish them when they disobey), concern only for their selves, lazy and irresponsible (love welfare), immoral and not self-disciplined), un-faithful in marriage...etc. Emotional immaturity is producing a generation of leaders and followers who love socialism.

So to reverse this downward trend we don't just need a majority of "Republicans" in office, we need more emotionally mature and well educated leaders who understand the great value of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and limited government with less foolish spending and
loser taxes, who will reverse the economic trend of inflation (selfishness) and stabilize the cost of living and medical support. There is no requirement for living to be so costly.

Chuck Sproull - Springville IN



"The Web"

Three things In Life

http://www.dobhran.com/GReetingS/GRinspire595.htm




Dolly Parton - Coat of many colors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1zJzr-kWsI



Seven issues to watch as the Senate begins amending the healthcare bill

By Jeffrey Young

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69673-seven-issues-to-watch-as-senate-begins-amending-healthcare-bill

Senators will be asked to cast their votes on numerous amendments as they begin a debate to reshape the country’s healthcare system.

Some amendments will be designed to improve the bill, some to satisfy a special interest or pet peeve. Still others will be presented as poison pills.

Here are seven issues likely to arise during the amendment process.

Public option: An issue that unites Republicans and divides Democrats on ideological grounds inevitably was bound to haunt the Senate Democratic leadership. The notion of creating a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private companies is seen as vital by liberal Democrats but centrists range from skeptical to deeply antagonistic, even though states could opt out.
The best hope for a positive outcome for the Democrats could rest on the chances that liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) along with centrist public option supporter Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) can forge yet another compromise version of the program to satisfy centrists such as Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who have threatened to filibuster the bill over the public option. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) is waiting in the wings with her “trigger” compromise.

Abortion: It wouldn’t be American politics if the forces on both sides of the abortion issue weren’t at loggerheads. The healthcare bill already includes language that is supposed to keep federal dollars away from abortion funding but the Catholic bishops, and Nelson, don’t think it goes far enough. Democratic Sens. Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.) each voted in committee to beef up the abortion restrictions so their actions on the floor will be key. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) authored the failed committee amendments and is sure to raise objections to the bill on abortion.

Health insurance excise tax: The proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans, a key to raising revenue and reducing long-term healthcare costs according to the Congressional Budget Office, may enjoy support in the White House but many Democrats and labor unions remain staunchly opposed to what they view as a middle-class tax hike. Already scaled down several times – the original idea was to tax the value of all workplace health benefits – Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and others will look to shrink it further, if not eliminate it, but will need to raise additional taxes to make up the difference.

Prescription drugs: The pharmaceutical industry struck a grand bargain this summer with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to limit its financial exposure from healthcare reform to $85 billion and to support the Democrats’ efforts. That deal has held uneasily since and Democrats are eyeing the chance to take a bite out of a long-time nemesis. Like in the House, Democrats are eager to require larger rebates from pharmaceutical firms who sell drugs to state Medicaid programs and use the additional money to sweeten the Medicare prescription drug benefit. A handful of Republicans such as Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and David Vitter (La.) would likely join, or even start, any effort to permit the import of medicines from abroad.

Affordability: Because almost everyone would be required to obtain health coverage, providing fair and adequate subsidies to low- and middle-income people has presented a challenge for lawmakers trying to keep the bill on budget. Liberal Democrats get more attention when they talk about the public option but they have complained about the subsidy levels almost as much, while Snowe has also been adamant that the bill does too little to ensure insurance is less expensive. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), a key swing vote, wants more help for small businesses and the self-employed. Trouble is, every dollar of assistance paid out has to come from somewhere.

Insurance exchanges: The concept of creating an online marketplace where consumers can comparison-shop for healthcare hasn’t been very controversial. But what types of plans people could buy and who will be allowed to buy them has been a point of contention. Democrats will be looking to provide access to the most generous but most affordable plans they can. Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), under an agreement with Reid and Baucus, will offer an amendment to let more people beyond individuals and small-business employees buy insurance on the exchanges. The exchanges wouldn’t launch until 2014, either, so Landrieu and others want to move that date closer.

Medicare cuts: Republicans have railed about the hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare contained in the bill though Democrats insist they are seeking to make the program more efficient and are not cutting anyone’s benefits. Because these cuts are essential to financing the rest of the bill, however, they’re here to stay – though some could be scaled back. The deep cuts to private Medicare Advantage plans, for instance, could be mitigated to assuage senators from states with large senior populations. Medical interests from physicians to home healthcare providers will also be seeking concessions.



ObamaCare: Let the Rationing Begin

by Dr. David Janda

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/29/obamacare-let-the-rationing-begin/

Last week, the Federal Government Ivory Tower trumpeted important news. One of its illustrious Task Forces has decided that women in their 40’s would be the first to experience “Medical Darwinism.”

The United States Preventive Services Task Force, comprised of 16 appointees, decreed that:

1. Women in their 40’s no longer need routine yearly mammograms

2. Women aged 50-74 are to have mammograms only every other year

3. Self breast exams are no longer to be done at any age

Of note, this Task Force does NOT have even one member who is a cancer specialist or oncologist, let alone a breast cancer specialist. This panel based its recommendations NOT on comprehensive new clinical studies or research, but rather on computer projections of certain data points. A review of previous recommendations by the same Federal Government reveals that these recommendations are diametrically at odds with recommendations made just six months ago. So, what changed in six months?

New studies? No. What changed was the introduction of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Health Care Reform legislation, whose heart and core is based on rationing and denying care. (Note the omission of the word “soul.”) This method is the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs.

Let’s NOT let this Panel’s rationing objective get in the way of the real facts about breast cancer:

1. Breast Cancer is the number 1 killer of women globally…..500,000 women will die this year

2. Seventeen percent of Breast Cancer deaths occur in women diagnosed in their 40’s

3. Twenty-two percent of Breast Cancer deaths occur in women diagnosed in their 50’s

4. One of the leading factors in INCREASED survival rates in breast and other types of Cancer is based on EARLY diagnosis and intervention.

5. Those countries with higher death rates from Cancer have health care delivery systems based on rationing tests and treatments.

The recommendations made by the “Ivory Tower” Federal Panel do not even pretend to address these five points. However, they are completely in line with The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Health Care Legislation agenda— to deny and ration care as a means to cut costs.

On Sunday, November 22, Fox News Sunday interviewed Senator Arlen Specter, who was a Democrat before he was Republican before he was a Democrat. Senator Specter let the “secret agenda” of Obama-Pelosi-Reid slip . When questioned on the fact that The Senate Bill cuts $500 Billion in Medicare spending over ten years, yet in ten years there will be 30 percent more people in Medicare, Senator Spector stumbled. He admitted that Congress has NEVER cut Medicare benefits in its history and then confessed, “This Bill has a provision….a CURE….in how we can CUT Medicare—a Commission.” That’s right, a non-elected Commission will be appointed by The President. Starting in 2015, this Commission will oversee Medicare and its expenditures, but this Commission will NOT be accountable to the public. Initially, it will oversee cuts to Medicare Advantage, the same program that services 10 million Seniors. Using this type of panel to make such cuts, when it is NOT accountable to or elected by the public, is like bombing an enemy from 40,000 feet…..destruction occurs but you don’t see their faces. And, by 2019, ALL limits are off, and every American can become the target of the carpet bombing.

The bad news is that through this legislation authored by Obama-Pelosi-Reid, every American is facing more than one bomber. Through the hidden health care portion of The Stimulus Bill we are facing a squadron of bombers: The Federal Coordinating Council of Comparative Effectiveness Research, The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology Office, and The Medicare Commission in The Health Care Bill.. Their mission is to deny and ration care, and, as stated in The Stimulus Bill, “To guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.” Say so long to your privacy, doctor-patient privilege, choice, and control over your health care options and access.

Today it is mammogram screening tests. Tomorrow it will be the rationing and denial of treatment, if Obama-Pelosi-Reid have their way. Every American will become a victim of their rationing boards. Faceless, unaccountable, and unelected, these commissions will control 17% of this country’s GNP, and 100% of your health care options.

So, how is that “Hope” and “Change” looking so far?



White House Dismisses ‘Climategate’ Because ‘Most People’ Believe in Global Warming

By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57795

(CNSNews.com) - As President Barack Obama prepares to travel to a global climate summit next week in Copenhagen, the White House is dismissing the “climategate” controversy that has arisen over the leak of email communications between top climate-change scientists that some skeptics say cast doubt on the legitimacy of the science behind the theory that human activity is causing global warming.

Obama will be attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference on Dec. 9. The conference in Copenhagen comes soon after the emails released by a computer hacker has led one Republican U.S. senator to call for an investigtation.

Some global warming skeptics have referred to the e-mails--from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in England--as “climategate.”

But White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed the controversy on Monday, saying that most people don’t dispute global warming.

“In the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening,” Gibbs said. “I don’t think that any of that is, quite frankly among most people, in dispute.”

Leading global-warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wants an investigation into the content of the e-mails. He has asked all government agencies to retain e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

“It appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated,” Inhofe said in a statement last week. “I certainly don't condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus' of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world's leading climate scientists.”

One of the e-mails said, “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” It was written by Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU)

The texts of some of the 3,000 e-mails were posted by the Wall Street Journal last week.

Another e-mail suggested that scientists “hide the decline” in the earth’s temperatures.

Obama will announce plans in Copenhagen that include reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, according to the White House.

“In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83 percent by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30 percent reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42 percent reduction below 2005 in 2030,” a White House release last week said.



White House still listening to Van Jones 'green' advice

Communist-group founder on team influencing environmental policies

By Aaron Klein

© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117548

Van Jones

Van Jones, President Obama's controversial former "green jobs" czar, serves on the advisory board of an independent environmental organization actively working with the White House, WND has learned.

Jones resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Jones is one of 20 advisers to the University of Colorado–based Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, which draws up climate-policy recommendations for the White House and has been working with members of the Obama administration.

The PCAP last September released a lengthy proposal to guide the environmental policies during the first 100 days of the 44th U.S. president regardless of whether Obama or Sen. John McCain won the election.

William S. Becker, the PCAP's executive director, confirmed to WND his group is "about to propose a new and more assertive strategy for President Obama to raise the bar on the U.S. climate goal, with or without Congress."

Becker told WND his group's initial proposals have received a "very positive reception from the moment we delivered (the 100-day proposal) last November to John Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team."

"We continue to work with some colleagues inside the (Obama) administration, as well as continuing to push for bold action from the outside," he said.

Becker said the White House "adopted quite a few of our recommendations or variations of them."

He cited a few examples of the influence of the PCAP and other environmental groups on Obama's policies:

The PCAP recommended that the U.S. reach a bilateral climate deal with China prior to the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The U.S. has since signed several agreements with China to share technology that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions.

The PCAP recommended an executive order that removed the gags from federal climate scientists. This became one of Obama's first actions on environmental policy.

The PCAP recommended an overhaul of federal energy management to beef up efficiency requirements for federal agencies and to restore absolute carbon reduction targets that had been rescinded by the Bush administration. The Obama administration issued a new federal energy management order in October, including a requirement that agencies develop absolute targets for greenhouse-gas reductions.

The PCAP recommended (as did many others) that the Environmental Protection Agency embrace California's vehicle emission standards and begin the process of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is doing both.

The PCAP recommended major budget increases for states and communities to engage in energy and climate actions and to weatherize the homes of low-income families. This was part of Obama's stimulus package.
The PCAP describes itself as seeking to engage the "best thinking of America's leaders in government, science and civil society to identify actions that will empower all elements of society to meet the challenges of energy security and climate change." The group actively promotes the theory of global warming.

A means to fight racial 'justice'

WND reported Jones was a founder and leader of the communist group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM.

STORM's official manifesto, titled "Reclaiming Revolution," had been published on the Internet until WND and other websites linked to the online publication.

A review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism."

"We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," read Jones' manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Zedong and Amilcar Cabral."

Cabral is the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands. Jones named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.

Speaking to the East Bay Express in 2005, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

"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. 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.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.

Jones boasted to the East Bay Express that his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Jones went on to found the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, named after a little-known civil rights firebrand and socialist activist.

Succeeding revelations by WND included:

Jones previously served on the board of an environmental activist group at which a founder of the Weather Underground terrorist organization is a top director.

Jones was co-founder of a black activist organization that has led a campaign prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Glenn Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program. The revelation followed Beck's reports on WND's story about Jones' communist background.

Jones and other White House appointees may have been screened by an ACORN associate.

One day after the 9/11 attacks, Jones led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world.

Just days before his White House appointment, Jones used a forum at a major youth convention to push for a radical agenda that included spreading the wealth and "changing the whole system."

Jones' Maoist manifesto while leading the group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, was scrubbed from the Internet after being revealed by WND.

Jones was the main speaker at an anti-war rally that urged "resistance" against the U.S. government – a demonstration sponsored by an organization associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party.

In a 2005 conference, Jones characterized the U.S. as an "apartheid regime" that civil rights workers helped turn into a "struggling, fledgling democracy."

Jones signed a petition calling for nationwide "resistance" against police, accusing them of using the 9/11 attacks to carry out policies of torture.
Editor's note: This article included research by Brenda J. Elliott.



All the President's Climategate Deniers

by Michelle Malkin

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/12/02/all_the_presidents_climategate_deniers

"The science is settled," we've been told for decades by zealous proponents of manmade global warming hysteria. Thanks to an earth-shaking hacking scandal across the pond, we now have mountains of documents from the world's leading global warming advocacy center that show the science is about as settled as a southeast Asian tsunami. You won't be surprised by the Obama administration's response to Climategate.

With pursed lips and closed eyes and ears, the White House is clinging to the old eco-mantra: The science is settled.

Never mind all the devastating new information about data manipulation, intimidation and cult-like coverups to "hide the decline" in global temperatures over the last half-century, they say. The science is settled.

Never mind what The Atlantic's Clive Crook, after wading through the climate science e-mail files of the U.K.'s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, called the overpowering "stink of intellectual corruption" -- combined with mafia-like suppression of dissent, suppression of evidence and methods, and "plain statistical incompetence" exposed by the document trove. The science is settled.

Never mind the expedient disappearance of mounds of raw weather station data that dissenting scientists were seeking through freedom of information requests from the Climatic Research Unit. The science is settled.

In March, President Obama made a grandiose show of putting "science" above "politics" when lifting the ban on government-funded human embryonic stem cell research. "Promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry," he said during the signing ceremony. "It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Yet, the pro-sound science president has surrounded himself with radical Climategate deniers who have spent their entire professional careers "settling" manmade global warming disaster science through fear mongering, intimidation and ridicule of opponents.

-- Science czar John Holdren, who will testify on Capitol Hill this week at a hearing on Climategate, infamously hyped weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population control freak pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich. He made a public bet against free-market economist Julian Simon, predicting dire shortages of five natural resources as a result of feared overconsumption. He lost on all counts. No matter.

Holdren's failure didn't stop him from writing forcefully about mass sterilization and forced abortion "solutions" to a fizzling, sizzling, overpopulated planet. And it didn't stop him from earning a living making more dire predictions.

In 1986, Ehrlich credited Holdren with forecasting that "carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." He went on to Harvard and the White House. On the "Late Show with David Letterman" earlier this year, Holdren fretted that his son "might not see snow!"

Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball notes that Holdren turned up in the Climategate files belittling the work of astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division. Holdren put "Harvard" in sneer quotes when mocking a research paper Baliunas and Soon published in 2003 showing that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." First, deny. Next, deride.

-- Energy Secretary Steven Chu picked derision as his weapon earlier this year when peddling the Obama administration's greenhouse-gas emission policy. "The American public … just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act," The Wall Street Journal quoted Chu. He dismissed dissent by asserting that "there's very little debate" about the impact of "green energy" policy on the economy.

There's "very little debate," of course, because dissenters get crushed.

-- The Obama team's chief eco-dissent crusher is climate czar Carol Browner. She oversaw the destruction of Environmental Protection Agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge's order during the Clinton years requiring the agency to preserve its records.

Over the past year, the EPA has stifled the dissent of Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the agency who questioned the administration's reliance on outdated research on the health effects of greenhouse gases. Recently, they sought to yank a YouTube video created by EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams that is critical of cap-and-trade. Browner reportedly threatened auto execs in July by telling them to "put nothing in writing … ever" about their negotiations with her.

And she is now leading the "science is settled" stonewalling in the wake of Climategate. "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists," she said. "These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real." Book-cookers are good at making it seem so.

In any case, last year, more than 31,000 scientists -- including 9,021 Ph.D.s -- signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.

But hey, who's counting? The science is settled.



A Get Out of Jail Free Card for Terrorists?

by John Armor

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnArmor/2009/11/17/a_get_out_of_jail_free_card_for_terrorists?page=full&comments=true

Late on Friday, Attorney General Holder announced President Obama’s decision that the alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his confederates would be tried in federal court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal. A firestorm of protest has erupted over whether the terrorists can be safely held in New York City, or whether this is good or bad for "international relations."
Most of these discussions entirely miss the main point. Trials are about finding the facts, and punishing the guilty. This decision by the President, the opposite of what he said on the campaign trail, will sharply increase the odds that the terrorists will beat the rap on a technicality, and walk out of the courtroom free just blocks from Ground Zero.

Here are some of the critical differences between a military tribunal and an ordinary, U.S. criminal trial:

First: The constitutional guarantee of “a speedy trial” applies in criminal court; it does not apply in a military tribunal. Under Supreme Court cases, a delay of five years from the arrest of the defendant to the bringing of charges is clearly excessive. Another terrorist/defendant has already filed a motion in another trial to dismiss all charges on this ground, as soon as he came into a criminal court.

If that minor defendant beats the rap on this technicality, it would probably mean that all charges would be dismissed, without trial, against Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his cohorts.

Second: In criminal court, but not in a tribunal, the defense can force the government either to reveal the methods of intelligence gathering, or drop the charges. There are already several instances of people charged with espionage, caught red-handed with secret documents, who walked out of court free as a bird, because the government had to protect its intelligence efforts in time of war. The same may happen, here.

Third: All the defendants have confessed. But the jury will never hear those confessions, because of how the confessions were obtained. In a military tribunal, those confessions would be admissible.

Even worse, in the military tribunal at Gitmo, all the defendants announced their intention to plead guilty, in return for the opportunity to make statements about justified jihad in court. Obama stopped that process in its tracks by presidential order. All these defendants would have been found guilty and sentenced months ago, absent the President’s interference.

Fourth: Criminal defendants are entitled to a “jury of their peers.” Anyone want to bet that ACLU-supported lawyers won’t claim that such a jury must include some Muslims? And if so, what are the odds at least one juror will hold out for “not guilty,” or at least for “no death penalty” if there is a conviction? Neither of those would apply in a tribunal, where the judge and jury is a panel of nine U.S. military officers.

Fifth: There is a unanimous (8-0) Supreme Court decision, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), holding it constitutional to try Nazi bombers who entered the U.S. from submarines, before a military tribunal, not a criminal court trial subject to the Bill of Rights. This is a short decision, written in plain English, that even laymen can read and understand. It has been affirmed in recent years as good law by the current Supreme Court.

Somewhere in the bowels of the Justice Department is a memo written by career lawyers, reciting all of these points. But the business of this Attorney General is to do what he’s told, no matter whether that outcome is moral, legal or constitutional. This is a continuation of the Marc Rich pardon under President Clinton.

The moving of this trial displays to our enemies that we are both cowardly and foolish. That display WILL cause additional deaths of American soldiers and civilians. The only way this dangerous decision can be stopped is if Congress votes to de-fund it. Otherwise, there is a chance that the defendants, who have already confessed, will walk free into the streets of New York City.



Conservatives Don’t Need a Litmus Test for RINOs

Written by Richard Viguerie

http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/470

In an interview with the Baltimore Sun today, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele publicly rejected the candidate “litmus test” proposed by a group of national conservatives. The concept behind the proposal is to force a certain “conservative ideological purity” on to candidates and elected officials in the Republican Party so that Republicans don’t end up supporting socialist-statist policies. The RNC will vote on the proposal next month when it holds its annual meeting.

While well intentioned, the litmus test proposal would do little to solve the two fundamental problems within the Republican Party: bad leadership and conservative acquiescence to bad leadership.

RINOs such as Dede Scozzafava and Florida Governor Charlie Crist aren’t the real issue. Scozzafava, Crist, and others who rightly deserve the “RINO” tag are merely an annoyance. Besides irritating their fellow Republicans with their all too frequent wrong votes, RINOs haven’t really had a great deal of impact on the direction of Republican party policies over the past decade.

The current Republican leadership has consistently supported our national slide to socialism. I’m talking about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and the leading architect of Republican endorsed socialist-statism, former Bush White House political advisor Karl Rove. These “leaders” have consistently abandoned constitutional principles of limited government in favor of socialist-statist programs, all in the name of “winning.”

The Bush supported Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 was the largest Federal Government give-away program in decades. Former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke a few arms in the party to make sure this legislative travesty passed, and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert cheered him on. At the time of its passage, Karl Rove mistakenly crowed that the legislation meant that the Republican Party had wrapped up electoral dominance for years to come.

In the fall of 2008, both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Boehner voted in favor of President Bush’s now infamous Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation, a $700 billion bailout of large financial institutions which merely transferred large piles of money from average taxpayers to Wall Street fat cats who had run their businesses into the ground, based in part on requirements forced on them by Congress.

During both of these disasters, as well as many others, most of the national conservative leadership maintained its silence as the “pragmatists” destroyed free markets and conservative principles.

National conservatives who want to fix the Republican Party shouldn’t waste their time forcing symbolic litmus test votes on the Republican National Committee. Instead, they should consider focusing their considerable energies on solving the real problem. Now is the time to put new leaders at the helm of the House, the Senate, the RNC, the NRCC, and the NRSC.

A litmus test is only as good as the character of the person who endorses it. It’s easy for professional politicians to say they support something in order to pass a test that gives them access to campaign cash. The more important test is true devotion to the limited government principles embodied in our Constitution.

The road to new leadership for the Republican Party goes through the 2010 primaries. The current Republican members of Congress aren’t going to throw McConnell and Boehner out. But the Republicans elected in November of 2010 can get that job done. Conservatives can help make that a reality by supporting boat-rocking principled conservative candidates in the upcoming primaries, and making sure they win in November.



"The e-mail Bag"

FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT

Obama is the shepherd I did not want.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Republican party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
I am glad I am American,
I am glad that I am free.
I wish I was a dog ...
And Obama was a tree.

Brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091202

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

What happens when you believe something with all your heart? Belief fuels enthusiasm, and determined enthusiasm explodes into passion. It fires our souls and lifts our spirits. -- Mac Anderson

"Carpe diem! Rejoice while you are alive; enjoy the day; live life to the fullest; make the most of what you have. It is later than you think." -- Horace



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

God blesses those who are humble, for they will inherit the whole earth. (Matthew 5:5)

Mother Teresa entered the Senate Caucus Room on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Immediately the top leaders of the most powerful country in the world, along with the other esteemed guests, rose to their feet and applauded. Many had tears in their eyes.

The wife of a United States Senator later said, "She looked so tiny and out-of-place in her blue-and-white habit, old gray sweater, and sandals that had obviously carried her many miles. I was struck with the contrast. I thought, Lord, this frail woman has more power than I see in the Halls of Congress. She reflects Jesus everywhere she goes, and everyone is strangely moved."

Mother Teresa never owned anything; she never held up her fist to demand rights for herself. Yet she was raised to a pinnacle of recognition for her work with the destitute and dying in Calcutta, India. A shining example of selflessness, she proved the power of God's love to transform people and touch a starved world.

This is real power, and, unlike that of the world, it confounds the wise and humbles the mighty. It is the power of God working through ordinary men and women for His glory.

When we are filled with His Spirit, we have that same power inside of us. But He wants us to be vessels of His mission. Then people will not see us, but will see Him in us. Like Mother Teresa, we will display a power the world does not know. But His Spirit working in us will draw others to Himself.

Your View of God Really Matters …

When people look at you, who do they see? Jesus or you? The only way people will ever see Jesus in you is if you focus on Him. It's not enough to act right. You must focus right. Today focus on Jesus, and allow His Spirit to live through you.



"The Patriot Post"

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -- James Madison



Political Futures

"Here's a new maxim: Nothing good ever happens when the Congress is in session on a Saturday night. As you know, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev) cajoled, coerced, and co-opted Senators Mary Landrieu (D-La) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) into adding the 59th and 60th necessary votes to prevent a GOP filibuster of Reid's health reform bill. Reid and Obama Administration officials relied on the time honored method (used by Republicans and Democrats) of getting recalcitrant Members to vote a certain way: Bribery which, in the real world, is a felony but in Washington it is called 'hardball.' In Sen. Landrieu's case the bribe was $300 million in Medicaid benefits to Louisiana. It's not even a close call. According to the website 'Total Criminal Defense,' 'Bribery is an attempt to influence another person's actions, usually a government or public official employee, by offering a benefit in exchange for the desired decision.' Three hundred million in return for a vote to proceed. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Landrieu is a better bribee than she is an accountant. She said in her floor speech that there was $100 million in the bill specifically to pay for Medicaid in Louisiana and only Louisiana. Talking to reporters afterward, she said, 'I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it.' No reports, yet, on how angry White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel was when he found out she had been satisfied with the $100 million and he overpaid by a factor of three." -- political analyst Rich Galen



Liberty

"The 'reformers' in the White House and the House of Representatives have made all too plain their vision of the federal government's power to coerce individual Americans to make the 'right' health-care choices. The highly partisan bill the House just passed includes severe penalties for individuals who do not purchase insurance approved by the federal government. By neatly tucking these penalties into the IRS code, the so-called reformers have brought them under the tax-enforcement power of the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office stated on October 29 that the House bill would generate $167 billion in revenue from 'penalty payments..' Individual Americans are expected to pay $33 billion of these penalties, with employers paying the rest. Former member of Congress and Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook has concluded that for this revenue goal to be met, 8 to 14 million individual Americans will have to be fined over the next ten years, quite an incentive for federal bureaucrats. ... By transforming a refusal or failure to comply with a government mandate into a federal tax violation, the 'progressives' are using the brute force of criminal law to engage in social engineering. This represents an oppressive, absolutist view of government power. ... The idea of imprisoning or fining Americans who don't knuckle under to an unprecedented government mandate to purchase a particular insurance product should outrage anyone who believes in the exceptional promises and opportunities afforded by our basic American freedoms. ... Unless this paternalistic juggernaut is stopped, Americans will lose some of their most fundamental freedoms, and the power of the federal government to impose novel requirements in every facet of our personal lives will have become virtually unlimited." -- Brian W. Walsh & Hans A. von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation



Opinion in Brief

"By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice. Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime. [Attorney General Eric] Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be 'the trial of the century.' The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson." -- columnist Charles Krauthammer



For the Record

"[There are] uncanny parallels between George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover: Both were president during a time of economic crisis; both presided over vast expansions of government that helped cause the crisis or at least make it worse than it might have been otherwise; finally both were (inaccurately) portrayed by their political opponents as dogmatic free market advocates, when in fact both were highly statist. After leaving the presidency, Bush is unconsciously imitating Hoover in yet another way -- by rhetorically supporting free markets and criticizing the even more interventionist policies of his Democratic successor (which in both cases built on the expansions of government initiated by the Republicans who preceded them).... Bush's belated support for free markets follows in Hoover's footsteps. After leaving office in 1933, Hoover wrote books and articles defending free markets and criticizing the Democrats' New Deal. Some of his criticisms of FDR were well-taken. Many New Deal policies actually worsened and prolonged the Great Depression by organizing cartels and increasing unemployment. But by coming out as a free market advocate, the post-presidential Hoover actually bolstered the cause of interventionism because he helped cement the incorrect impression that he had pursued free market policies while in office, thereby causing the Depression. Bush's post-presidential conversion creates a similar risk: it could solidify the already widespread impression that he, like the Hoover of myth, pursued laissez-faire policies which then caused an economic crisis. ... The greatest contribution Bush can now make to free market policies is to dispel the impression that he pursued them while in office." -- Ilya Somin, Associate Professor at George Mason University School of Law



Faith & Family

"[W]hy is religious freedom such a concern to us as Christians? Freedom of religion is called the first freedom for a reason. Our Founding Fathers recognized that without freedom of conscience, no other freedom can be guaranteed. Christians, in fact, are the greatest defenders of religious freedom and human liberty -- not just for Christians, but for all people. Compare religious freedom in those countries with a Christian heritage to the state of religious freedom in Islamic nations, Communist countries, and Buddhist and Hindu nations, and you will see my point. The reason that Christians place such a high value on human freedom is that freedom itself is part of the creation account in the Bible. God made humans in His image. He gave us a free will to choose to love, follow, and obey Him, or to follow our own way. That free will, given us before the Fall, is part of human nature itself. Perhaps more than anything else, it was this understanding of individual freedom that turned me into the kind of patriot who would willingly give his life for his country. It was the words of the Declaration of Independence that inspired me to join the Marines: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' So this question of human freedom goes to the very heart of who we are as Christians and as Americans." -- author Chuck Colson



The Last Word

"Whether it's the academic community, the media elite or politicians, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism -- a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined. Academics, media elites and leftist politicians both in the U.S. and Europe protested the actions and military buildup of President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and ultimately the breakup of the Soviet Union. Recall the leftist hissy fit when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire and predicted that communism would wind up on the trash heap of history. ... [T]he reason why the world's leftists give the world's most horrible murderers a pass is because they sympathize with their socioeconomic goals, which include government ownership and/or control over the means of production. In the U.S., the call is for government control, through regulations, as opposed to ownership. Unfortunately, it matters little whether there is a Democratically or Republican-controlled Congress and White House; the march toward greater government control continues. It just happens at a quicker pace with Democrats in charge. You say, 'Come on, Williams, there will never be the kind of socialist oppression seen elsewhere here!' You might be right because Americans have become very compliant with unconstitutional and immoral congressional edicts. But what do you think would happen if some Americans began to rise up and heed Thomas Jefferson's admonition 'Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.' and decided to disobey unconstitutional congressional edicts?" -- George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams



"Liberty Counsel"

Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org

Humanist Organization Tries to Undermine Christmas with its "Godless" Campaign

When most people are celebrating the Christmas spirit of joy and love, the American Humanist Association is playing the role of Scrooge by placing anti-God ads on city buses. They feature an image of people wearing Santa hats and the words: "No God? …No Problem. Be good for goodness sake."

The American Humanist Association is waging war against Christmas, but its temper tantrum is doomed to fail. Most Americans believe in God and celebrate Christmas.

Liberty Counsel is fighting back with our seventh annual Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign, which is designed to educate and, if necessary, to litigate to make sure that Christian aspects of Christmas are not censored.

As part of the campaign, we have included our "Naughty & Nice List" of stores that either censor or recognize Christmas. We thank God for this campaign's successfulness.

We also offer a Help Save Christmas™ action pack, which includes educational legal memoranda to accurately inform government officials, teachers, parents, students, private businesses, employees, and others that it is legal to celebrate Christmas.

Read our News Release for more details.

Listen to Radio Programs About Christmas

You can listen online to recent radio programs for more about Christmas and the culture wars. Just follow the links below:

Faith & Freedom is an 11-minute weekday program covering hot topics impacting your family and your world.

Freedom's Call is an informative 90-second weekday radio program providing commentary and a quick synopsis of commentary about religious liberty, life and family.

These inspiring programs will encourage you to take a stand.

Help Save CHRISTmas!

Don't let the "grinches" take away your joy when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. You can help Liberty Counsel preserve the meaning of Christmas. Order our Help Save Christmas Action Pack® from our online store for a donation of $25.00 or call toll-free to order: 800-671-1776.

Help Save Christmas Action Pack

Your Action Pack includes:

"I Helped Save Christmas" button
"I Helped Save Christmas" bumper sticker
"I Love CHRISTmas"® button and window cling
"I Love CHRISTmas"® bumper sticker
Full-Page Christmas Ad to print in your local newspaper
"The Memo that Saved Christmas" - 2 legal memoranda about Christmas in public and the workplace.

In addition, you can find many exciting gift ideas in our online store. We have listed several suggestions on our Christmas Gift Ideas page that have proven popular to our supporters. In addition to finding the perfect gift for family and friends, you will have the assurance that you are helping Liberty Counsel fight for your religious freedom.

All the suggested donation amounts listed above include shipping and handling costs. All items can be ordered online.

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 that 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"

Principles before GOP politics

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=784098

The vice chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) is promoting a proposed resolution that would warn 2010 GOP candidates that if they do not respect the party's "conservative values," they will not receive the financial backing or endorsement of the RNC.

The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" was drafted by Jim Bopp, vice chairman of the RNC. It requires that GOP candidates prove not only with their campaign speeches, but also with their voting record that they embrace at least eight of ten conservative principles (listed below).

Bopp tells OneNewsNow he has yet to get RNC chairman Michael Steele's opinion on his proposal because the resolution was leaked prematurely by "people who are trying to undermine the effort." He says the resolution is designed to ensure the party puts its money where its mouth is.

"The Republican Party needs to reclaim its conservative bona fides," argues Bopp. "The problem is that we lost our way on fiscal conservative policies at the end of the Bush administration with expanding government and increasing debt, and then support of bailouts. So we need to show that we are serious about governing as conservatives."

Bopp says the Republican Party's message is compromised when the party supports liberal Republican candidates like DeDe Scozzafava in the 23rd Congressional District of New York.

The ten conservative principles, as distributed by the RNC, are as follows:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.

(2) We support market-based healthcare reform and oppose Obama-style government-run healthcare.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing healthcare rationing and denial of healthcare and government funding of abortion.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.



Obama invites a nightmare

Peter Heck - Guest Columnist

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=791004

The storyline is hauntingly familiar: terrorist detainees were moved to a major city to await trial. While there, fellow Islamic terrorists decided to make a daring and dastardly attempt to gain their release, not by attacking the well-protected courtroom or the heavily guarded detention facility (they are bloodthirsty but they are not stupid), but by going for a more tantalizing target.

Thirty-five bomb-laden Muslim terrorists stormed a crowded middle school full of parents, teachers, and children. By doing so, they immediately gained what they desired most: the eyes of a watching world paralyzed with fear at what they might do. And the world had reason to fear. Over the course of this three-day massacre, the terrorists barricaded doors and tied up authorities in "negotiations" that were used only to buy them the time they needed to coldly execute the stronger men hostages, rape young girls in front of their watching mothers, and rig explosives throughout the complex to ensure that when the authorities stormed the building there would be massive casualties.

This horrific drama played out in the quiet Russian town of Beslan just five short years ago. In the end, 394 lay dead (over half of them children) with another 704 injured.

And stunningly, Barack Obama has just invited the same carnage to our shores.

When the President's Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration's breathtakingly ignorant decision to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and five compatriots to New York City to stand trial in civilian court for their act of war, there was undoubtedly a collective gasp in the small towns outside New York. The citizens there surely must recognize that the high-profile status of KSM alone is enough to tempt every terror cell this side of Basra to consider making their rural middle schools the stage for Beslan: Act Two.

Why any president sworn to protect the lives of his fellow citizens would take such an outrageously absurd and completely unnecessary risk is unfathomable. And make no mistake...it is unnecessary. KSM and his fellow terrorists were already being tried by military commissions far away from American children and out of the international spotlight that they so desperately crave. Many, including KSM, had already pled guilty and requested execution.

But Barack Obama halted these commissions when he came into office, apparently more concerned with bolstering his image as a "citizen of the world" than protecting his own people. He then passed the buck to Eric Holder who announced that the terrorists would be brought to one of America's largest cities for the trial of the century.

The negative consequences of this decision are plentiful. From endangering innocent Americans to gift-wrapping a perfect propaganda opportunity for the terrorist world, this decision is inexcusable. And considering that the choice to try these monsters in civilian courts was to supposedly ensure that justice would be done, this decision becomes incomprehensible. (How, for instance, will these show trials result in any better or more just outcome than a guilty plea and execution sentence – something that the military commission had all but secured?)

In short, this is about to be a circus. [Editor's Note: Results from a related OneNewsNow poll question appear at the end of this column.]

Obama and Holder have now given constitutional "rights of the accused" to these terrorists (something that has never been done throughout all of American history). And if you don't think that their lawyers are going to bring up the manner of their detainment, the circumstances surrounding their capture, any perceived threats or mistreatment, any notion of coerced confessions, their lack of immediate access to attorneys, demand for relocation, complaints about a biased jury, calls for mistrials, and the need for an extensive appeals process, you aren't thinking...sort of like the Obama administration.

With a decision this bad – one that is receiving scorn across the country from angry Americans of all political backgrounds – one might hope that Team Obama would come to its senses and reverse course. Not likely.

When announcing this preposterous decision Holder stated, "To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps."

Frankly, sir, the grisly images of Beslan are a little too fresh in our minds to be overly concerned with your personal political consequences. We're a bit more concerned about the potentially deadly consequences this ragingly incompetent administration may have just brought on innocent American citizens.

Vice President Joe Biden once criticized Barack Obama's lack of preparedness for the serious responsibilities associated with the job of president by saying that the presidency was "not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." God forbid that we're about to see just how right he was.



Rep. Gohmert: ‘We Don’t Have Forensic Wagons To Gather Evidence on the Battlefield’ for Civil Court Trials of Terrorists

By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=57709

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind, shown shortly after his capture in Pakistan in this March 1, 2003 photo. He and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court. (AP File Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who opposes the Obama administration’s decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, told CNSNews.com that U.S. troops do not have “forensic wagons to pull up on the battlefield when we’ve got people in harm’s way” to collect evidence as is done for civil court cases.

“[T]o require the same types of standards of a civilian court to be applied to a war setting where our guys, our men and women are in harms way, is to require our military to lose their lives to gather evidence like DNA, finger prints,” said Gohmert at a Nov. 17 press conference. “We don’t have forensic wagons to pull up on the battlefield when we’ve got people in harm’s way.”

At the press conference, held to discuss Republican criticism of big government, CNSNews.com asked the following question: “You mentioned the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism and national security issues. The Obama administration has announced it will try the alleged mastermind behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in a military commission. Do you believe he can get a constitutionally legitimate and fair trial in a military commission?”

In response, Rep. Gohmert said: “To say that these guys cannot get a fair trial is to say that anyone who is tried in a military court does not get a fair trial and that is simply not true. When I was at Fort Benning for four years, there were acquittals there.”

“Those were done under the same UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], so certainly they can get a fair trial,” said Gohmert, “but it’s a different type trial when you are talking about someone who is not a U.S. citizen. And to require the same types of standards of a civilian court to be applied to a war setting where our guys, our men and women are in harm’s way, is to require our military to lose their lives to gather evidence like DNA, finger prints. We don’t have forensic wagons to pull up on the battlefield when we’ve got people in harm’s way.”

“There’s a different standard for a reason,” he said. “And this administration and those in Congress who would encourage this have so little regard for the people in New York City that they would bring terrorists to the most densely populated areas in this country, and it is outrageous.”

Gohmert, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former Texas appeals court judge, said the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court derives from the Obama administration’s “desire to look good” in foreign countries.

“They’re [The Obama administration] putting a desire to look good in foreign countries ahead of the oath we take to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic and it comes back to the pink slip issue,” he said.

“[W]e have some people who are in Washington, both in the executive and legislative branch who have deaf ears to what Americans are saying,” said Gohmert. “We want you, they say, to be more concerned about your oath to follow the Constitution and to protect us than to go feel good in front of some liberal at some foreign cocktail party. The obligation is here in America and that’s why people are fed up with it.”



Our GIs Earn Enough

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33607-2000Jan11.html

By Cindy Williams

Wednesday, January 12, 2000; Page A19

This month every member of the U.S. military is getting a 4.8 percent pay raise, the biggest inflation boost the military has seen in 18 years. The ink on the paychecks is not yet dry, but already some politicians and lobbyists are clamoring for bigger raises in future years. Just this week the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that most military people feel they are not paid fairly.

Proponents of additional hefty raises argue that even after this month's raise, the military suffers a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector. But in fact there is no pay gap worthy of the name; our armed forces are already paid very well compared with the rest of America. It makes no sense to pour money into outsized pay raises. The 25 percent pay hike that some proponents are backing would cost taxpayers more than $12 billion a year.

The "gap" of 13 percent does not measure the relative levels of military and civilian pay. Rather, it is supposed to reflect the differences between military and private sector raises since 1982. The calculation is set up to make the differences seem as large as possible. For example, it includes the growth in what the military calls "basic pay" but not the growth in allowances for food and housing. And it compares the military and civilian raises over separate time periods. Just correcting for those two problems cuts the result in half.

Comparing raises and calling it a pay gap makes no sense anyway. If you get a 5 percent raise this year and your neighbor gets 10 percent, it hardly means your pay has fallen behind your neighbor's: If you earned twice as much as your neighbor to start with, you still earn more than he does. Wage data show that our troops typically earn more money than 75 percent of civilians with similar levels of education and experience.

For example, after four months in the Army, an 18-year-old private earns about $21,000 a year in pay and allowances. In addition, he or she gets a tax advantage worth about $800, because some of the allowances are not taxed. That's not bad for a person entering the work force with a high school diploma. By way of comparison, an automotive mechanic starting out with a diploma from a strong vocational high school might earn $14,000 a year. A broadcast technician or communications equipment mechanic might earn $20,000 to start but typically needs a year or two of technical college.

At the higher end of enlisted service, a master sergeant with 20 years in the Marine Corps typically earns more than $50,000 a year--better than a senior municipal firefighter or a police officer in a supervisory position, and comparable to a chief engineer in a medium-sized broadcast market. Among the officers, a 22-year-old fresh out of college earns about $34,000 a year as an ensign in the Navy--about the same as the average starting pay of an accountant, mathematician or a geologist with a bachelor's degree. A colonel with 26 years makes more than $108,000.

In addition to these basic salaries, there are cash bonuses for officers and enlisted personnel with special skills. There are also fringe benefits: four weeks of paid vacation, comprehensive health care, discount groceries, tuition assistance during military service and as much as $50,000 for college afterward. Enlistment and reenlistment bonuses can run to $20,000 and more.

Advocates of additional big raises maintain that military people should be paid more because they are more highly qualified--they exceed national averages in verbal and math skills and percentage of high school graduations. But while these facts may help explain why the majority of our soldiers already earn more money than 75 percent of Americans, they don't explain why their future raises should exceed civilian wage growth by a large amount.

Some advocates contend that we need a large boost in military pay because the services are finding it difficult to attract and keep the people they need. But recruiting can be improved much less expensively by pumping up advertising, adding recruiters and better focusing their efforts and expanding enlistment bonuses and college programs. Pay is not necessarily the most important factor in a person's decision to stay in or leave the military. We might get better results by reducing the frequency of deployments, relaxing antiquated rules and improving working conditions.

Proponents of higher pay also note that military people put up with hardships such as long hours and family separations. Yet many civilian occupations make similar demands, and firefighters, police and emergency medical personnel, like many in the military, risk their lives on the job.

The report that CSIS released this week points to problems of morale and dissatisfaction across the military. But those problems are not all about pay. According to CSIS, they reflect concerns about training and leadership, the demands of frequent overseas deployments and unmet expectations for a challenging and satisfying military lifestyle.

Higher pay will not fix these problems.

The writer, a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was assistant director for national security in the Congressional Budget Office from 1994 to 1997.


Military pay too high?

Read this letter from Airman Michael Bragg

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/United/Airman.htm

This letter was written in response to an Op/Ed piece that appeared in the Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2000 written by a Ms. Cindy Williams of MIT (not of the Laverne and Shirley TV show) denouncing the pay raise(s) coming servicemembers' way this year -- citing that the stated 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.

A young airman from Hill AFB responded to her article as follows. (He ought to get a bonus for this!)

Ms. Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 5,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence(housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN, I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone -- obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the act that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, to borrow from Voltaire, "I will defend to the death your right to say it." You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe.

We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?

Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC



"The e-mail Bag"

THE DONKEY

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally, he decided the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway; it just wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey.

He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him. They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement he quieted down.

A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well. He was astonished at what he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up.

As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and happily trotted off!

MORAL :

Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick to getting out of the well is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of our troubles is a steppingstone. We can get out of the deepest wells just by not stopping, never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.

Remember the five simple rules to be happy:

1. Free your heart from hatred - Forgive.

2. Free your mind from worries - Most never happens.

3. Live simply and appreciate what you have.

4. Give more.

5. Expect less from people but more from God.

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091201

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

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



"Daily Motivations"

I am here to tell you, to promise you in fact, that simple, tiny changes made one minute at a time, one experience at a time, will positively change your life and every outcome of every experience, in powerful (though sometimes subtle) ways. -- Karen Casey

"A closed mind is like a closed book: just a block of wood." -- Chinese Proverb



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

This is real love - not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. (1 John 4:10)

If you had to summarize God in only one word, what would that word be?

Steve Henning waited fifty-seven years to hear a single word. As a baby, he had contracted spinal meningitis. Since penicillin was being saved for the war effort in 1943, he received no treatment and fell deaf. In 2001, however, a new surgical procedure was developed. The doctors implanted a device in Steve's ear, but then the waiting game began. The device could only be activated when the swelling went down---and that took six weeks.

When the moment of truth came, the doctors activated the cochlear implant. Steve's wife was invited to say something, to see if her husband could hear it. She leaned toward him and gently said, "I love you." A great smile came across his face. The first sound he heard was the affirmation of love.

It is a lesson worth remembering as we talk about God to those who do not know Him. The first and most important words should be affirmations of His love. It's a beautiful, desirable message that helps the spiritually deaf to hear God saying, "I love you."

Your View of God Really Matters …

One of God's most amazing characteristics is His love. It is the most powerful and irresistible force in the universe. Learn to communicate His love as you represent Him to a world that is desperate for genuine love.



"The Patriot Post"

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Pres. Reagan

"We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times." -- George Washington, letter to Philip Schuyler, 1777

"It is a happy circumstance in human affairs that evils which are not cured in one way will cure themselves in some other." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Sinclair, 1791

"Wish not so much to live long as to live well." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1746



The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

John Quincy Adams

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].8

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9

Endnotes

7. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), p. 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.

8. Life of John Quincy Adams, W. H. Seward, editor (Auburn, NY: Derby, Miller & Company, 1849), p. 248.

9. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.



"The Web"

Awaken O, America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fzKY0hS_Pw



Tater People

http://www.frontiernet.net/~jimdandy/specials/sweettators/



Morning Bell: A Victory for Democracy in Honduras
Democracy does win in Honduras!

On June 28, 2009, there was an ousting of Honduras’ President Manuel Zelaya http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529885,00.html. President Manueal Zelaya was making efforts to extend his government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic-Central_America-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement.

Hondurans Congress named Roberto Micheletti President, and he immediately declared a Democracy for all Hondurans. According to the Associated Press, ‘Micheletti's supporters say the army was justified in ousting Zelaya — on orders of Congress and the Supreme Court — because he had called a referendum which they claim he intended to use to extend his rule. Zelaya denies that and has said he will no longer press for constitutional changes’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were "wrong" in their efforts to save former President Manuel Zelaya, who was coddling up to Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and others of the Socialist and/or Communist leaders. oyh


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/30/morning-bell-a-victory-for-democracy-in-honduras/

After casting her ballot for former Vice President Elvin Santos of the ruling Liberal Party in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Sunday, Erika Rodriguez told the Miami Herald: “I don’t even care who wins. This is the first time you are going to see all Hondurans celebrating — anybody’s victory.” So despite the fact that her candidate lost to cattle rancher and former congressman Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo, Rodriguez joined millions of other Hondurans last night to celebrate a peaceful and successful democratic election.

The turmoil in Honduras began this summer when then-President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a referendum to gauge public interest in changing the constitution. As a leftist known for his ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, many democracy advocates in Honduras alleged Zelaya was following in Mr. Chávez’s footsteps and attempting to change the law to stay past term limits. Deeming this was a violation of Honduran law, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress ousted Zelaya before his term was up. Rather than side with the democratic institutions of the land, the Obama administration surprisingly backed Zelaya’s demand for a return to power. For four months, U.S. diplomats bullied and hectored the interim government of Robert Micheletti to return Zelaya to power — despite an August report from the Law Library of Congress that concluded that the Honduran government had every right to depose him.

Thankfully, the Obama administration eventually realized the error of their ways and helped broker a deal between Zelaya and the interim government on October 29th. The critical point of the pact was the recognition of a truly Honduran process for resolving the political crisis - yesterday’s presidential election. But Zelaya has since backtracked on his word. Speaking from the Brazilian embassy yesterday, Zelaya told CNN: “Absenteeism triumphed. … These elections don’t correct the coup d’etat.” According to the Miami Herald, Zelaya supporters told registered voters to stay home, and some went as far as planting minor bombs throughout the capital to create a climate of fear.

Despite these threats of terror, the Honduran people defied Zelaya, Chavez, and leftist Brazilian President Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (whom President Barack Obama loves), and participated in the elections in overwhelming numbers. About 61% of Hondurans turned out to vote in the election yesterday, compared to the meager 46% that turned out to vote in 2005.

The elections were monitored by over 600 observers from at least 31 countries who visited 75 different polling centers and interviewed thousands of Hondurans. The Washington Senior Observer Group, of which three Heritage scholars participated, released a statement saying in part:

We witnessed the enthusiastic desire of thousands of Honduran citizens to cast their ballots. Many took time to thank us for our presence today. Without exception, they expressed confidence in the electoral system, pride in exercising their right to vote, and a profound hope that their election is a decisive step toward the restoration of the constitutional and democratic order in Honduras.

It is now time for Zelaya to honor his side of the October 29th agreement and accept the legitimacy of Sunday’s elections. Furthermore the Obama administration must assert itself to make sure Zelaya does not derail the electoral process and steal Honduras from its people.



7 stories Obama doesn't want told

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091130/pl_politico/29993

AFP/File – US President Barack Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional … John F. Harris John F. Harris
Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.

No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money

Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.

Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.

The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.

Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.

Too much Leonard Nimoy

People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”

The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.

Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.

Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.

The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.

That’s the Chicago Way

This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.

It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”

The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode.

The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans.

The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.

He’s a pushover

If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.

It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent.

In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.

He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe

That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist.

Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country — because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.

On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.

His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.

On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.

President Pelosi

No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.

The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude — as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense.

This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.

But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror

No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?

It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.

White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media.

But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.

That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.



Best Buy Extends Islamic (But NOT Thanksgiving) Greetings

By Debbie Schlussel

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/12702/black-islamic-friday-best-buy-retailer-extends-eid-but-not-thanksgiving-greetings/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/bestbuy2009.asp

How do you know Muslims have reached critical mass . . . or at least the shrill whine level that gets them uber-pandering? When giant retailers blatantly cater to them, despite whom it might piss off. And when it ignores a major American holiday in favor of the Islamic one. Best Buy has gone down that path, forsaking the American majority for the Islamic minority.

If you’re planning on doing your post-Thanksgiving holiday shopping at Best Buy, you might think twice about carrying any ham or bacon around or even wearing your pigskin boots. In its latest weekly circular, Best Buy wishes you a Happy Eid Al-Adha . But Best Buy pointedly does NOT wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. It only asks you to spend Thanksgiving shopping at the store. Eid Al-Adha is the Islamic festival of sacrifice, one of the two major Islamic holidays. The other is Eid Al-Fitr.

Eid Al-Adha is based on the Islamic fraud and revisionist history that Abraham took Ismael, not Isaac, to be sacrificed when commanded by G-d. Complete baloney. But, hey, it makes Muslims feel good. Still, most Jews and Christians should be offended by this controversial holiday endorsement by Best Buy for that reason alone. (The Koran has Isaac being the son of the maid and cursed by G-d to be a wild animal. But we see the proof in the progeny about who got the wild savage curse.)

Yup, Best Buy wants non-Muslims to spend their Thanksgiving time–and, more important, dollars–at the store. But it only extends holiday greetings to Muslims. Normally, this whoring to Muslims is for dollars or votes. But in this case, Best Buy is whoring to Muslims, yet expecting the Infidel dopes to pay the bills. Nice.

Disgusting. And a very dumb move, Best Buy. . . especially just weeks after the Fort Hood Islamic massacre.

Sadly, I wish it were truly bad business for Best Buy to do this. Unfortunately, most Americans are more concerned with getting the best deal on the latest laptop or widescreen than they are with letting Best Buy know where to go with its “holiday greeting.”



Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge

'We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case'

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117141

A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.

WND previously reported on the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The case asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."

The Constitution also provides, the lawsuit says, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

Now the attorney has posted an online statement that the brief on behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4, 2010.

In an e-mail announcing the schedule, Kerchner wrote, "We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court."

He continued. "They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a 'natural born citizen' of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle."

"I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper," he wrote today.

Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appeal that the district court judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits of the case.

"We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same," he wrote.

The lawyer said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.

It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue.

"By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II 'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief," the attorney said.

"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he continued. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.'

"The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II 'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be president," the attorney said.

WND reported earlier when Kerchner publicly argued the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama's eligibility.

He wrote, "The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama."

He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
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.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

WND has reported on another case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his 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, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

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.



"The e-mail Bag"

The farmer and the DEA agent

http://bitsandpieces.us/2009/11/24/the-farmer-and-the-dea-agent/

A DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas, and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.” The rancher says, “Okay, but do not go in that field over there,” as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, ” Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me.” Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. “See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish . . . on any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand?”

The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher’s big Santa Gertrudis bull . . .

With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he’ll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs . . ..

“Your badge. Show him your BADGE!”

Thanks Denny