Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
The purpose of our lives is to give birth to the best which is within us. -- Marianne Williamson
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"The Lord is kind and merciful, slow to get angry, full of unfailing love." (Psalm 145:8)
Justice delayed is often justice denied. For example, if a defense lawyer can keep postponing a murder case, evidence that is available in a speedy trial becomes useless. Witnesses may die or move away. The defense can challenge the validity of a witness's memory. Police departments misplace evidence.
However, as believers, it is important that we also recognize that we are saved precisely because God delays His justice. Whatever age you or I received God's promise of eternal life was more than enough time for God to have caused His just wrath to fall on us.
Dr. Cyril E. M. Joad, who for years was the head of the Philosophy Department at the University of London, probably did more to undermine the faith of the collegiate world of recent generations than almost any other. He believed that God was an impersonal part of the cosmos and that there was no such thing as sin.
However, before he died, Dr. Joad became convinced that the only explanation for sin was found in the Bible---and the only solution for sin was the cross of Jesus Christ. Like the apostle Paul, he became a zealous follower of Jesus. No doubt many of his followers turned to faith in God through his testimony and writings. God's long-suffering and incredible patience brought this skeptic to his knees at the cross.
None of us deserve even one day of life because of our sinful, depraved nature, so we should be grateful for a just God who delays His justice. When it comes to our sin, justice delayed works to our advantage.
"The Patriot Post"
"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." -- Alexander Hamilton
The BIG Lie
"[E]ven as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump. And this is a point I want to emphasize: If you buy a car, your investment in a more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of this standard will pay off in just three years. In three years' time you will have paid off the additional investment required. So this is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car. ... The fact is, everyone wins." -- Barack Obama
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes." -- Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"Norman! It's Hillary. What am I going to do with you Norman? You are working so hard for me, that I, I just don't know what to say anymore. I've never seen anybody who has been more loyal and more effective and really just having greater success supporting someone, uh, than you. Everywhere I go, you're there. If you're not, you're sending people to be part of my events. You know, we're going to win this campaign, Norman, because you single-handedly are going to make that happen. ... Lots of love. Bye-bye." -- Hillary Clinton on a March 2007 voicemail to Norman Hsu
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
The Social Security Administration has sent out 52 million stimulus checks, and in its rush to meet the June distribution deadline, some of them ended up going to dead people (a.k.a. Obama voters). As reported by the New York City Fox News affiliate, Antoniette Santopadre of Long Island received a check made out to her father, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He had been a U.S. citizen but had not been in the United States since 1969. It is estimated that some 8,000 to 10,000 checks amounting to millions of dollars in taxpayer money went to dead people because Social Security had no record of their passing. Fair enough, but how do you explain mistakes like Santopadre's father, who was never even part of the Social Security system?
On Cross-Examination
"The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. ... But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. .... There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance." --former Vice President Dick Cheney in his speech opposing Obama http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090522/ap_on_go_ot/us_cheney_text
"Find Law"
Man Charged with Murder for Killing of Abortion Doctor in Church
KANSAS V. ROEDER
(Kansas Dist. Ct., Sedgwick Cty., Jun. 2, 2009) - Kansas prosecutors have charged Scott Roeder with first degree murder for allegedly gunning down abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31 at Tiller's church in Wichita. Read more...
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/kansas-roeder60209murder.html
Related Resources
• Suspect in doctor killing railed against abortion (AP)
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/06-02-2009/20090602002002_10.html
• Scott Roeder, Suspect in George Tiller Murder: Example of Domestic Terrorism?
(FindLaw's Blotter) http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/06/scott-roeder-suspected-in-george-tiller-murder-example-of-domestic-terrorism.html
"The Web"
Obama Wrong America Not Christian Nation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEF2-a6QBx8
Group urges IRS review of Liberty tax exemption
This is an effort by left-wing activist to attack and destroy any Christian value organization(s). Is this the type of "Change" so many voted for? - oyh
http://www.onenewsnow.com:80/Education/Default.aspx?id=545632
WASHINGTON, DC - The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State wants the Internal Revenue Service to review Liberty University's tax-exempt status because the Christian school revoked its recognition of a student-run Democratic club.
Americans United made the request in a letter to the IRS, arguing that Liberty's recognition of a Republican club offers GOP candidates support that is not available to Democratic candidates.
Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University law school, calls the complaint "frivolous" and says Liberty will ask the IRS to review whether Americans United should lose its tax-exempt status for regularly supporting Democratic Party positions.
Liberty's chancellor, Jerry Falwell Jr., said the club's recognition was revoked because the Democratic Party's abortion and homosexual rights positions are contrary to the university's principles. In an earlier statement, Falwell said "Liberty University is pro-life and believes that marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environment for children" -- and that the school "will not lend its name or financial support to any student group that advances causes contrary to its mission." (See earlier article)
http://onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=542038
Sotomayor Fits Obama's 'Get-Even' Power Approach
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:02 AM
By: David Limbaugh
http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Sotomayor_Obama_empathy/2009/06/02/220519.html
It amazes me that, for all the attention Judge Sonia Sotomayor has attracted for a racially charged statement in a 2001 speech, few are tying her attitude to President Barack Obama's.
Just as he knew precisely what his 20-year pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was about, and approved, he knew before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor what she is about, and approved.
In both cases, he just didn't want us to know.
During that 2001 speech at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Obama's apologists claim Sotomayor's statement was taken out of context. But the context of her prepared remarks makes the statement more — not less — incriminating.
The sentences preceding the statement were: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement."
First, it's important to note that she's not talking about trial judges, for example, who might be more or less lenient in their sentencing within the prescribed sentencing guidelines, but about appellate judges applying the law.
Next, Sotomayor is not just saying that, as imperfect human beings, judges sometimes rule differently because, try as they might to be impartial, no human being can be totally impartial.
Nor is she saying merely that women, based on their gender, rule differently from men or that those of different nationalities rule differently based on those differences, but that they should do so and that their rulings usually are superior because of it.
Are you getting this? She is saying women and minority judges should not even strive toward objectivity, impartiality, or blind justice. Rather, they should indulge their subjective experiences to apply the law with partiality aforethought, presumably to remedy past perceived or actual wrongs, even if objective application of the law does not warrant it. They should ignore or twist the law to achieve their desired policy result.
To the objection that Sotomayor was just theorizing in a harmless speech, I would respond by reminding you — again — of her pivotal role in that now-notorious concrete case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she summarily and cavalierly affirmed a district court's decision to cheat firefighters of their duly earned promotions because no black candidates passed the tests.
Talk about empathy all you want, but she and her judicial colleagues displayed no empathy for those who played by the rules. With strokes of their pens, they discriminated against successful candidates and caused them real damage by changing the rules after the fact — not to mention the damage their ruling might have caused to the quality of fire departments, whose job is to save lives and property.
Those ordinarily quickest to cry "racism" are expressing outrage that certain commentators have used that term to describe Sotomayor's statements and rulings that would be condemned universally if somebody such as, say, Trent Lott, made them. But the fact remains that Sotomayor apparently approves of reverse discrimination, and President Obama must have known that in advance.
Obama is a militant proponent of get-evenism, that is, using the power of the state — actually, misusing the power of the state — to even the score for minorities and/or the economically less fortunate.
After all, Obama is the one who said: "Solving our racial problems in this country will require concrete steps, significant investment. We have a lot of work to do to overcome the long legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. It can't be purchased on the cheap."
Are we to assume that the Civil War and the civil rights movement were "on the cheap"?
And Obama's Justice Department just inexplicably dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther members who intimidated voters and polling judges at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008. This, despite the fact that one civil rights lawyer said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen and the fact that the defendants didn't even bother to file pleadings with the court or raise any defenses to the charges.
Regardless of whether race played a factor in this dismissal, Obama has a long way to go before claiming he's a post-racial president.
Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and reverse racism is racism. None of us is exempted of our duty to rise above them.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" recently was released in paperback. To find out more about him, visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com .
Outlawing Opinion
by Chuck Norris
It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.
Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.
Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.
For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.
If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."
The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents' Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function? When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine -- which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation -- is right around the corner.
Government isn't the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean's -- who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up -- giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions, she's been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.
I don't care what your cause is. I don't care what your mission is. I don't care what the issue is. I don't care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen's constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone's offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?
It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!
When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we've drifted from our roots. Isn't it time we returned home to the Constitution?
Hate Speech
By: Charles Sproull
Here is a more remedial way to view the issue of "hate speech." If you feel pain in your body, the discomfort may seem like something bad; but actually it is good, because God created a nervous system in our bodies that uses pain as an indicator that something is wrong and needs to be corrected. You can either ignore pain by taking a sedative that numbs the body and never cures the pain, or find the source of the pain, be healed, and feel better quickly.
Likewise, when sinners feel emotional pain of guilt and conviction, this is good because God put this feeling in our conscience as an indicator that something is wrong in our hearts and lives, and needs to be corrected.
When a sick person is diagnosed with a particular disease (for example a flu that could be fatal) by doctor who cares about the health of that person's body, and is able to administer the right medical cure to heal him, if that person is afraid of the report or wants to remain sick, he could dishonestly accuse that doctor of "hate speech."
Likewise, when a sinner is diagnosed with a particular sin (for example homosexuality) by a preacher who cares about the health of his soul, and is able to minister the right spiritual/emotional cure that would deliver that sinner (1 Cor 6:11), if that person is afraid of the message or wants to remain a sinner and suffer the consequences, he might be tempted to dishonestly accuse that preacher of "hate speech."
I understand how uncomfortable the feeling of conviction is when exposed to the preaching of God's word. When my conscience was filled with guilt and fear of future judgment, I heard a preacher hatefully tell me "You are a sinner and on your way to hell." I already knew that, but hated that preacher for being a minister of condemnation. For many years I ignored that painful feeling and used sedatives of ignorance and physical and emotional pleasures, in a vain attempt to make me feel better.
But when I heard the gospel preached with love, by a (Minster of grace" (Eph 4:15,25,29), and had the courage and honesty to face spiritual reality and considered the eternal destiny of my soul, I found out that my feelings were explained in 2 Co 7:9-10. "The sorrow of the world worketh death" (including negative feelings of anger and hatred) in me. So I understand the feelings various sinners have when they accuse preachers of "hate speech."
But the good news is "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation" and leads us beyond bad feelings through the "strait gate" of the new birth (remission of sins and regeneration of the soul - Matt 7:13a,14, Acts 2:38), into the "narrow way" of life, with healing of the heart from those bad feelings. And God fills us with His love and "peace that passes understanding" and "joy unspeakable and full of glory" (see Gal 5:22-23, Phil 4:14, 1 Peter 1:8). How can this be considered as "hate speech"?
By their resistance, HRC activists demonstrate they are running from the darkness in Rom 1:27-28 and hiding behind Rom 2:1-3, and that they are "normal-phobic," "truth-phobic," "light phobic," "God-phobic," and "salvation-phobic." Also, feminists and people who view marriage and raising children as "slavery" are "not fully developed" (dictionary meaning of "immature") and appear to be "marriage-phobic," "responsibility-phobic" and "parenthood-phobic."
Even worse, according to police reports, many rampage killers have confessed ties to pornographic and violent entertainment, and to homosexuality.
So, to solve these problems, they don't need more laws, but they need healing from the Great Physician (they need to run from Rom 1:26-27 back to Rom 1:16-17). Just like a doctor accepts us just as we are, IF we want to be healed, so God accepts us just as we are, IF we accept Him as He is and are willing to receive the changes He wants to make in our hearts and lives, to deliver us and prepare us to live with Him in eternity.
Have a wonderful, free American day, be militant in a good-natured way.
Charles Sproull
"S.F. is going broke, whether you like it or not!"
As you see the salaries below, be sure to see "Jed and all his kin" of the Beverly Hillbillies "attachment".
http://myprops.org/content/S.F.-is-gonna-be-broke-whether-you-like-it-or-not/
This Link is located in the Public Channel Housing Bubble and Bear Links.
It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!
Are you wondering why California state and local governments are so broke? The City of San Francisco Salaries above could have something to do with it.
I should have gone into nursing... I had no idea they can make $350k, or that a manager of a city public transportation system can earn $325k. And don't forget the fire chief pulling in $270k.
"They're gonna be rich, whether you like it or not!!!"
And as you might expect, many California and University of California state workers earn even higher salaries. Holy Christ, how are that many Medical School Profs pulling in over $1 million (some close to $2 million)? Do you think Stephen Hawkings or Einstein made anything close to that (adjusted for inflation)??
"The e-mail Bag"
Pinocchio, Snow White and Superman
Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day.
As they walk, they come across a sign:
"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
"I am entering!" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd you do?"
" First Place !," said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign:
"Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
" First Place ," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"
They continue walking when they see a sign:
"Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?"
"I'm entering," says Pinocchio. After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?" asked Pinocchio.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090602
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
Life is ten percent what you make it and ninety percent how you take it. -- Ben Franklin
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"The LORD your God is a devouring fire..." (Deuteronomy 4:24)
They were called the Great Fires of 1988. That year, wildfires swept through 1.4 million acres of Yellowstone National Park. The park was like a huge lumberyard filled with millions of wooden poles. Winds as powerful as a tornado whipped the flames through the forest with the sound of a freight train, reducing trees to piles of white ashes and small charred spears on the blackened earth.
But months later, the forest grew with new vigor. The heat from the fires split open the hulls of the pine cones, releasing their seeds and yielding a forest of little saplings sprouting everywhere. The dead underbrush had been burned away. New spears of grass turned the hillsides to spring green, and a bumper crop of wildflowers carpeted the meadows.
Anyone who has been near a fire of such magnitude understands its tremendous power. When it roars through an area, everything is changed. Ancient trees turn into cinders. Buildings are reduced to ashes. Nothing can withstand its fury. But in their wake, wildfires also bring new growth and regeneration.
God's holiness has even greater power. The fire of God can burn away sin and rebellion, but it also brings new life.
Of all God's attributes, nothing compares to the splendor and beauty of His holiness. It is chief among His attributes. That means His character is perfect in every way. He is totally pure. His moral excellence is the absolute standard of integrity and ethical purity. God's supreme holiness infinitely sets Him apart from His creation.
"The Patriot Post"
"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." -- George Washington, upon fumbling for his glasses before delivering the Newburgh Address, March 15, 1783
"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." -- John Adams, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 18, 1808
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821
"Focus On The Family"
May 27, 2009
Dear Friend,
The battle for marriage is erupting all around us, and the most important fight of all may be about to commence.
In a span of four days in April, same-sex “marriage” made huge leaps forward. First, Iowa became the latest victim of court-imposed same-sex “marriage”—joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont became the first state to legislatively enact such “marriages.”
Then the District of Columbia City Council voted to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states. Finally, the New Hampshire and Maine Legislatures approved same-sex marriage as well, though a veto is still possible in New Hampshire and citizens in Maine will soon be collecting signatures to place a "People's Veto" question on the ballot.
But there’s some good news. Just yesterday, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 – that’s state’s marriage protection amendment, which had been challenged in court following its passage last November.
Tom Minnery
Yet, as big as those skirmishes are, they simply foreshadow another battle that is threatening the marriage policies of the remaining states and our federal government. Your Focus on the Family Action team is preparing to win that battle, and we’ll need your help to do it. Let me quickly bring you up to date.
You may recall that in 1996, Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and President Clinton signed it into law. In so doing, they ensured that the federal government wouldn’t recognize or provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex “marriages.” But that’s not all. DOMA also protects states from being forced to honor such same-sex marriages from another state.1
Obama and congressional leaders vow to dump DOMA
But, despite this important protection that DOMA provides, President Obama and leading congressional Democrats have made clear their intention to completely repeal DOMA.
Like many politicians, Mr. Obama has tried to walk a fine line on this issue. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” he told Rick Warren last August, echoing a line that he voiced several times during the campaign.2
Yet those assurances ring hollow when it comes to his position on specific policies that would actually preserve the age-old definition of marriage. For example, at the federal level, Obama voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment3 and insisted that each state should make its own decision. Yet at the state level, he opposed both the California4 and Florida5 2008 marriage amendments, as well as “similar efforts” in “other states.”6
In addition, he spelled out his position on DOMA on his campaign Web site on Feb. 28, 2008:
“I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.”7
Almost immediately after being sworn into office, Obama’s official White House Web site listed the repeal of DOMA as one of his legislative priorities.8 Then, in mid-March, Obama’s spokesman confirmed that the president “would work with Congress” to repeal DOMA.9
Why we must not lose this fight
If Obama and company get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, here’s what will likely happen:
• Some states—even those with pro-marriage constitutional amendments—will be taken to court by same-sex couples seeking recognition. Those states will face a more difficult legal situation if DOMA is repealed.
• Your federal taxes will begin paying for benefits for same-sex partners of federal
employees who identify themselves as homosexual, and President Obama is likely to order Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs to begin immediately issuing benefits to same-sex “spouses” throughout the nation. As a result, nearly insolvent programs will be further weakened by deficit spending.
Make a difference in 2009.
Help support the work of Focus Action.
And while those are the short-term results, the long-term impact of repealing DOMA will likely be to pave the way for further court rulings that ultimately mandate that same-sex marriage be available everywhere.10
I'm convinced we can win. Here’s why:
1) Many senators and representatives who philosophically support repealing DOMA come from states where a huge majority of the people voted for marriage amendments. With your help, Focus Action will run media campaigns to remind the politicians of those votes.
2) There is enormous energy when it comes to defending marriage. Just look at the spirited work in California to pass Prop 8 . . . or the reaction to the Iowa judges’ outrageous decision. By harnessing that energy, we can mobilize major grassroots groundswells in key states—with a strong chance of turning votes our way.
3) Forty-one. That’s the magic number of votes needed. Just 41 votes in the Senate will allow a filibuster to block any repeal of DOMA. It won’t be easy, but it’s possible.
Will you continue to stand with us to help us in this battle for marriage and other crucial values issues?
Here are a few examples of how your gift to Focus Action can help:
• Even very modest gifts can help us reach and activate hundreds or even thousands of
people through automated phone calls to key districts.
• Because of our history, Focus Action is naturally adept at mobilizing people through the radio. In addition to our own programs, we often produce carefully targeted ads designed to put appropriate heat on particular politicians. Many times, a moderate-sized gift can pay for an entire day’s worth of ads on certain stations.
• Depending on the situation and available funding, we also rely on educating and activating citizens through action-alert mailings, newspaper ads, grassroots organizing, church mobilization and much more. Your gift of any size can help make those efforts possible as we work to defend marriage nationally.
Again, thanks for your help that makes such work possible! And thank you for standing with us in prayer for our nation and for our work here at Focus Action.
Sincerely,
Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President
Focus on the Family Action
"The Web"
Born Again American
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/
Shredding The Constitution
http://townhall.com/video/HamNation/1450_052909Constitution
General Motors Files Bankruptcy
IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS
(U.S. Bankr. Ct., S.D. N.Y., Jun. 1, 2009) - General Motors (GM), one of Detroit's 'Big 3' automakers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in New York. The global auto company lists billions in debt and liabilities, and has an extensive list of creditors to whom it owes money. Read more...
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gm/bankruptcy60109petition..html
Related Resources
• GM to reorganize in government-led bankruptcy (AP)
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/06-01-2009/20090601015007_19.html
Lawyers Tag Sotomayor as Terror on the Bench
By: Tom LoBianco, The Washington Times
Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary - a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.
The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments.
Judge Sotomayor's demeanor on the bench will be one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee tackles when she appears for her confirmation hearing. A lack of a good temperament has been used as a line of attack against nominees in the past - most notably conservative Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated.
But several lawyers and legal scholars on a call organized by the White House said the criticism is misplaced and that Judge Sotomayor's legal acumen is overwhelming.
"She does not suffer fools gladly," said Kevin Russell, a partner for Howe & Russell P.C. who argued a case before Judge Sotomayor about respiratory ailments suffered by the men and women who cleaned up ground zero after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "I guess it is predictable that some of those fools would then complain about it."
Much of the public vetting of Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama nominated to be the first Hispanic woman to sit on the nation's highest court, has focused on her range of rulings on hot-button social issues.
Although the same lawyers who chastised her temperament gave her high marks on her legal abilities, Judge Sotomayor was the only member of the 2nd Circuit to receive a universally negative review of her temperament.
"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."
The authors of the almanac interviewed at least eight lawyers who practice regularly before the judges and granted them anonymity so that they could provide candid assessments, said Megan Rosen, the editor of the almanac. The guide profiles every federal judge.
Ms. Rosen said that although Judge Sotomayor's evaluations in the area of temperament were harsh, lawyers clearly respect her abilities - something not true of every judge reviewed in the almanac.
"Generally, when lawyers have respect for a judge it shows in all their other categories," Ms. Rosen said. "If you know it's just the general demeanor of the judge, it can help ease some of the tension that would otherwise be there."
The lawyer reviews cover the rulings, political leanings and legal abilities of the jurists. The almanac, published in November, said Judge Sotomayor writes good opinions, is liberal but careful to follow precedent and has good legal abilities.
"She is a direct and candid questioner," said Thomas H. Dupree Jr., a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general who has argued five cases before Judge Sotomayor since 2007.
People often mistake her intensity for aggression and anger, Judge Sotomayor told the Associated Press in 1998.
During a high-profile national security case heard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in December, Judge Sotomayor gave the attorney for a Canadian man who had been detained by U.S. forces little room to work.
Judge Sotomayor interrupted the lawyer, David Cole, numerous times about whether there was standing for a U.S. court to hear the case, before eventually explaining her aggressive questioning.
"That's why I'm trying to figure out and untie your arguments a bit," Judge Sotomayor told Mr. Cole.
Legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen documented concerns from 2nd Circuit law clerks and New York prosecutors in a piece he wrote for the New Republic earlier this month. In the piece, he quoted anonymous members of the New York legal community who described Judge Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight and "kind of a bully on the bench."
On the White House-organized call, Judge Sotomayor's colleagues praised her careful reading of laws and characterized her as a judge bent on restraint and narrow readings of statutes.
Lawyers on the call couched her aggressive questioning as a product of a "hot bench" and poring over details meticulously.
Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament was raised during her 1997 confirmation hearing to the appeals court. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who recently became the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Judge Sotomayor that she was out of bounds when she criticized mandatory minimum sentences from the bench during one sentencing proceeding.
"I do think that a judge, would you not agree, has to be careful in conducting themselves in a way that reflects respect for the law and the system," Mr. Sessions said.
Judge Sotomayor said she probably should not have used the word "abomination" to describe the guidelines, but that her record showed she didn't let her personal opinions affect her rulings.
"I do what the law requires, and I think that is the greatest respect I could show for it," she told Mr. Sessions.
Harvard law professor and Obama mentor Charles Ogletree said lawyers caught off guard by Judge Sotomayor's demeanor who criticize her are "misconstruing her sense as a well-prepared judge, one who is not on a fishing expedition."
Conservative activists have decided on attacking Judge Sotomayor as a judicial activist who would work outside the rule of law. The Judicial Confirmation Network, which is leading a coalition of conservative groups, is airing an ad featuring Judge Sotomayor talking about whether judges set policy from the bench.
Conservatives Will Make Case Against Sotomayor, Even if Republicans Don't
Written by Richard Viguerie
http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/253
President Barack Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is unfit, based on her record, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but conservatives will need time (September/October) to make that case to the American people.
David Axelrod said on Hardball that Obama wants Sotomayor to adapt laws to a modern context. That’s an admission of Obama’s goals for judicial activism, and why he nominated Sotomayor. The fight about Sotomayor is really a fight about Obama’s radical, unconstitutional agenda.
How much opposition conservatives can generate depends significantly on how much of a fight Republican Senators and the Republican Party puts up.
But conservatives are not waiting for Republican politicians. Conservatives will quickly launch a massive educational campaign using all forms of new and alternative media with special emphasis on the Internet, talk radio, direct mail, cable TV, and You Tube.
If Judge Sotomayor were confirmed, conservatives expect she would vote wrong on every issue of importance to conservatives; therefore she can expect to be opposed by every right-of-center organization.
President Obama has done something that has eluded conservatives in recent years – he’s united all conservatives – economic, libertarian, traditional, foreign policy, social and neo-cons.
The road that leads to Republican victories in 2010 and 2012 and defeat of Obama’s socialized health care plan and Cap and Trade starts with the Sotomayor nomination.
If Republicans fail to launch a major effort to defeat her nomination by defining Sotomayor and Obama as anti-U S Constitution, left-wing radicals, it will further discourage and disillusion the grassroots making their involvement in future battles including the 2009 and 2010 elections problematic.
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."
Seeking New Revenue
The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.
The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.
Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.
Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.
Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.
The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.
A VAT's Bottom Line
What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Sales Tax Gains Momentum
Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.
Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.
"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."
Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.
Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.
Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."
Brent Bozell Challenges FCC Chief on Fairness Doctrine
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell has urged acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps to call for a vote on a bill that would end efforts to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
The doctrine requires broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views, which would stifle conservative talk radio.
Copps recently stated that the Fairness Doctrine is "long gone" and "not coming back," Bozell pointed out.
However, Bozell also noted that last summer House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not allow an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine, and instead left it languishing in committee.
Copps has said on two occasions that those who express concern about the doctrine's reinstatement are "conspiracy theorists" who are engaged in "issue mongering" by "resurrecting the straw man of a bygone Fairness Doctrine."
Bozell on Tuesday issued a statement reminding Copps that more than 15 members of Congress have called for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, including Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
Bozell urged Copps to call for a vote on the bill.
The Fairness Doctrine was originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC and repealed in 1987. Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the doctrine's “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.
In his statement, Bozell declared: “I am most appreciative that my friend — FCC Chairman Michael Copps — has no intention of reinstating the anti-First Amendment so-called ‘Fairness’ Doctrine. But his statement that those of us concerned about its reimposition are . . . 'conspiracy theorists’ is off-base given the stated desires of so many members of Congress.
“When this many high-powered elected officials are calling for a return of the mis-named Fairness Doctrine, and are actively opposing a vote on the bill to prevent the FCC from reinstating it, it isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a determination to shut down free speech on talk radio.
“The solution is simple: Chairman Copps should call on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to allow a full, fair, stand-alone vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. That way we will know once and for all how each member of Congress thinks — are they for free speech, or are they for the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine?”
"The e-mail Bag"
OH GOD, Please! Make Me Women
A man was sick and tired of going to work every day while his wife stayed home. He wanted her to see what he went through so he prayed: "Dear Lord: I go to work every day and put in 8 hours while my wife merely stays at home. I want her to know what I go through, so please allow her body to switch with mine for a day. Amen.” God, in his infinite wisdom, granted the man's wish.
The next morning, sure enough, the man awoke as a woman. He arose, cooked breakfast for his mate, awakened the kids, set out their school clothes, fed them breakfast, packed their lunches, drove them to school, came home and picked up the dry cleaning, took it to the cleaners and stopped at the bank to make a deposit, went grocery shopping. Then drove home to put away the groceries, paid the bills, and balanced the checkbook. He cleaned the cat's litter box and bathed the dog. Then it was already 1 P.M. and he hurried to make he beds, do the laundry, vacuum, dust, and sweep and mop the kitchen floor. Ran to the school to pick up the kids and got into an argument with them on the way home. Set out milk and cookies and got the kids organized to do their homework, then set up the ironing board and watched TV while he did the ironing.
At 4:30 he began peeling potatoes and washing vegetables for salad, breaded the pork chops and snapped fresh beans for supper. After supper, he cleaned the kitchen, ran the dishwasher, folded laundry, bathed the kids, and put them to bed. At 9 P.M. He was exhausted and, though his daily chores weren't finished, he went to bed where he was expected to make love, which he managed to get through without complaint. The next morning, he awoke and immediately knelt by the bed and said, Lord, I don't know what I was thinking. I was so wrong to envy my wife's being able to stay home all day. Please, oh please, let us trade back.
"The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, replied: "My son, I feel you have learned your lesson and I will be happy to change things back to the way they were. You'll just have to wait nine months, though. You got pregnant last night."
Husband’s Duties
One day my housework-challenged husband decided to wash his Sweat-shirt. Seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, 'What setting do I use on the washing machine?'
'It depends,' I replied. 'What does it say on your shirt?'
He yelled back, ' OHIO STATE ! '
And they say blondes are dumb...
A Happy Woman
A couple is lying in bed. The man says, 'I am going to make you the happiest woman in the world.'
The woman replies, 'I'll miss you...'
"Daily Motivations"
Life is ten percent what you make it and ninety percent how you take it. -- Ben Franklin
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"The LORD your God is a devouring fire..." (Deuteronomy 4:24)
They were called the Great Fires of 1988. That year, wildfires swept through 1.4 million acres of Yellowstone National Park. The park was like a huge lumberyard filled with millions of wooden poles. Winds as powerful as a tornado whipped the flames through the forest with the sound of a freight train, reducing trees to piles of white ashes and small charred spears on the blackened earth.
But months later, the forest grew with new vigor. The heat from the fires split open the hulls of the pine cones, releasing their seeds and yielding a forest of little saplings sprouting everywhere. The dead underbrush had been burned away. New spears of grass turned the hillsides to spring green, and a bumper crop of wildflowers carpeted the meadows.
Anyone who has been near a fire of such magnitude understands its tremendous power. When it roars through an area, everything is changed. Ancient trees turn into cinders. Buildings are reduced to ashes. Nothing can withstand its fury. But in their wake, wildfires also bring new growth and regeneration.
God's holiness has even greater power. The fire of God can burn away sin and rebellion, but it also brings new life.
Of all God's attributes, nothing compares to the splendor and beauty of His holiness. It is chief among His attributes. That means His character is perfect in every way. He is totally pure. His moral excellence is the absolute standard of integrity and ethical purity. God's supreme holiness infinitely sets Him apart from His creation.
"The Patriot Post"
"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." -- George Washington, upon fumbling for his glasses before delivering the Newburgh Address, March 15, 1783
"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." -- John Adams, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 18, 1808
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821
"Focus On The Family"
May 27, 2009
Dear Friend,
The battle for marriage is erupting all around us, and the most important fight of all may be about to commence.
In a span of four days in April, same-sex “marriage” made huge leaps forward. First, Iowa became the latest victim of court-imposed same-sex “marriage”—joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont became the first state to legislatively enact such “marriages.”
Then the District of Columbia City Council voted to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states. Finally, the New Hampshire and Maine Legislatures approved same-sex marriage as well, though a veto is still possible in New Hampshire and citizens in Maine will soon be collecting signatures to place a "People's Veto" question on the ballot.
But there’s some good news. Just yesterday, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 – that’s state’s marriage protection amendment, which had been challenged in court following its passage last November.
Tom Minnery
Yet, as big as those skirmishes are, they simply foreshadow another battle that is threatening the marriage policies of the remaining states and our federal government. Your Focus on the Family Action team is preparing to win that battle, and we’ll need your help to do it. Let me quickly bring you up to date.
You may recall that in 1996, Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and President Clinton signed it into law. In so doing, they ensured that the federal government wouldn’t recognize or provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex “marriages.” But that’s not all. DOMA also protects states from being forced to honor such same-sex marriages from another state.1
Obama and congressional leaders vow to dump DOMA
But, despite this important protection that DOMA provides, President Obama and leading congressional Democrats have made clear their intention to completely repeal DOMA.
Like many politicians, Mr. Obama has tried to walk a fine line on this issue. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” he told Rick Warren last August, echoing a line that he voiced several times during the campaign.2
Yet those assurances ring hollow when it comes to his position on specific policies that would actually preserve the age-old definition of marriage. For example, at the federal level, Obama voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment3 and insisted that each state should make its own decision. Yet at the state level, he opposed both the California4 and Florida5 2008 marriage amendments, as well as “similar efforts” in “other states.”6
In addition, he spelled out his position on DOMA on his campaign Web site on Feb. 28, 2008:
“I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.”7
Almost immediately after being sworn into office, Obama’s official White House Web site listed the repeal of DOMA as one of his legislative priorities.8 Then, in mid-March, Obama’s spokesman confirmed that the president “would work with Congress” to repeal DOMA.9
Why we must not lose this fight
If Obama and company get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, here’s what will likely happen:
• Some states—even those with pro-marriage constitutional amendments—will be taken to court by same-sex couples seeking recognition. Those states will face a more difficult legal situation if DOMA is repealed.
• Your federal taxes will begin paying for benefits for same-sex partners of federal
employees who identify themselves as homosexual, and President Obama is likely to order Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs to begin immediately issuing benefits to same-sex “spouses” throughout the nation. As a result, nearly insolvent programs will be further weakened by deficit spending.
Make a difference in 2009.
Help support the work of Focus Action.
And while those are the short-term results, the long-term impact of repealing DOMA will likely be to pave the way for further court rulings that ultimately mandate that same-sex marriage be available everywhere.10
I'm convinced we can win. Here’s why:
1) Many senators and representatives who philosophically support repealing DOMA come from states where a huge majority of the people voted for marriage amendments. With your help, Focus Action will run media campaigns to remind the politicians of those votes.
2) There is enormous energy when it comes to defending marriage. Just look at the spirited work in California to pass Prop 8 . . . or the reaction to the Iowa judges’ outrageous decision. By harnessing that energy, we can mobilize major grassroots groundswells in key states—with a strong chance of turning votes our way.
3) Forty-one. That’s the magic number of votes needed. Just 41 votes in the Senate will allow a filibuster to block any repeal of DOMA. It won’t be easy, but it’s possible.
Will you continue to stand with us to help us in this battle for marriage and other crucial values issues?
Here are a few examples of how your gift to Focus Action can help:
• Even very modest gifts can help us reach and activate hundreds or even thousands of
people through automated phone calls to key districts.
• Because of our history, Focus Action is naturally adept at mobilizing people through the radio. In addition to our own programs, we often produce carefully targeted ads designed to put appropriate heat on particular politicians. Many times, a moderate-sized gift can pay for an entire day’s worth of ads on certain stations.
• Depending on the situation and available funding, we also rely on educating and activating citizens through action-alert mailings, newspaper ads, grassroots organizing, church mobilization and much more. Your gift of any size can help make those efforts possible as we work to defend marriage nationally.
Again, thanks for your help that makes such work possible! And thank you for standing with us in prayer for our nation and for our work here at Focus Action.
Sincerely,
Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President
Focus on the Family Action
"The Web"
Born Again American
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/
Shredding The Constitution
http://townhall.com/video/HamNation/1450_052909Constitution
General Motors Files Bankruptcy
IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS
(U.S. Bankr. Ct., S.D. N.Y., Jun. 1, 2009) - General Motors (GM), one of Detroit's 'Big 3' automakers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in New York. The global auto company lists billions in debt and liabilities, and has an extensive list of creditors to whom it owes money. Read more...
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gm/bankruptcy60109petition..html
Related Resources
• GM to reorganize in government-led bankruptcy (AP)
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/06-01-2009/20090601015007_19.html
Lawyers Tag Sotomayor as Terror on the Bench
By: Tom LoBianco, The Washington Times
Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary - a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.
The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments.
Judge Sotomayor's demeanor on the bench will be one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee tackles when she appears for her confirmation hearing. A lack of a good temperament has been used as a line of attack against nominees in the past - most notably conservative Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated.
But several lawyers and legal scholars on a call organized by the White House said the criticism is misplaced and that Judge Sotomayor's legal acumen is overwhelming.
"She does not suffer fools gladly," said Kevin Russell, a partner for Howe & Russell P.C. who argued a case before Judge Sotomayor about respiratory ailments suffered by the men and women who cleaned up ground zero after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "I guess it is predictable that some of those fools would then complain about it."
Much of the public vetting of Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama nominated to be the first Hispanic woman to sit on the nation's highest court, has focused on her range of rulings on hot-button social issues.
Although the same lawyers who chastised her temperament gave her high marks on her legal abilities, Judge Sotomayor was the only member of the 2nd Circuit to receive a universally negative review of her temperament.
"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."
The authors of the almanac interviewed at least eight lawyers who practice regularly before the judges and granted them anonymity so that they could provide candid assessments, said Megan Rosen, the editor of the almanac. The guide profiles every federal judge.
Ms. Rosen said that although Judge Sotomayor's evaluations in the area of temperament were harsh, lawyers clearly respect her abilities - something not true of every judge reviewed in the almanac.
"Generally, when lawyers have respect for a judge it shows in all their other categories," Ms. Rosen said. "If you know it's just the general demeanor of the judge, it can help ease some of the tension that would otherwise be there."
The lawyer reviews cover the rulings, political leanings and legal abilities of the jurists. The almanac, published in November, said Judge Sotomayor writes good opinions, is liberal but careful to follow precedent and has good legal abilities.
"She is a direct and candid questioner," said Thomas H. Dupree Jr., a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general who has argued five cases before Judge Sotomayor since 2007.
People often mistake her intensity for aggression and anger, Judge Sotomayor told the Associated Press in 1998.
During a high-profile national security case heard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in December, Judge Sotomayor gave the attorney for a Canadian man who had been detained by U.S. forces little room to work.
Judge Sotomayor interrupted the lawyer, David Cole, numerous times about whether there was standing for a U.S. court to hear the case, before eventually explaining her aggressive questioning.
"That's why I'm trying to figure out and untie your arguments a bit," Judge Sotomayor told Mr. Cole.
Legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen documented concerns from 2nd Circuit law clerks and New York prosecutors in a piece he wrote for the New Republic earlier this month. In the piece, he quoted anonymous members of the New York legal community who described Judge Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight and "kind of a bully on the bench."
On the White House-organized call, Judge Sotomayor's colleagues praised her careful reading of laws and characterized her as a judge bent on restraint and narrow readings of statutes.
Lawyers on the call couched her aggressive questioning as a product of a "hot bench" and poring over details meticulously.
Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament was raised during her 1997 confirmation hearing to the appeals court. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who recently became the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Judge Sotomayor that she was out of bounds when she criticized mandatory minimum sentences from the bench during one sentencing proceeding.
"I do think that a judge, would you not agree, has to be careful in conducting themselves in a way that reflects respect for the law and the system," Mr. Sessions said.
Judge Sotomayor said she probably should not have used the word "abomination" to describe the guidelines, but that her record showed she didn't let her personal opinions affect her rulings.
"I do what the law requires, and I think that is the greatest respect I could show for it," she told Mr. Sessions.
Harvard law professor and Obama mentor Charles Ogletree said lawyers caught off guard by Judge Sotomayor's demeanor who criticize her are "misconstruing her sense as a well-prepared judge, one who is not on a fishing expedition."
Conservative activists have decided on attacking Judge Sotomayor as a judicial activist who would work outside the rule of law. The Judicial Confirmation Network, which is leading a coalition of conservative groups, is airing an ad featuring Judge Sotomayor talking about whether judges set policy from the bench.
Conservatives Will Make Case Against Sotomayor, Even if Republicans Don't
Written by Richard Viguerie
http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/253
President Barack Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is unfit, based on her record, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but conservatives will need time (September/October) to make that case to the American people.
David Axelrod said on Hardball that Obama wants Sotomayor to adapt laws to a modern context. That’s an admission of Obama’s goals for judicial activism, and why he nominated Sotomayor. The fight about Sotomayor is really a fight about Obama’s radical, unconstitutional agenda.
How much opposition conservatives can generate depends significantly on how much of a fight Republican Senators and the Republican Party puts up.
But conservatives are not waiting for Republican politicians. Conservatives will quickly launch a massive educational campaign using all forms of new and alternative media with special emphasis on the Internet, talk radio, direct mail, cable TV, and You Tube.
If Judge Sotomayor were confirmed, conservatives expect she would vote wrong on every issue of importance to conservatives; therefore she can expect to be opposed by every right-of-center organization.
President Obama has done something that has eluded conservatives in recent years – he’s united all conservatives – economic, libertarian, traditional, foreign policy, social and neo-cons.
The road that leads to Republican victories in 2010 and 2012 and defeat of Obama’s socialized health care plan and Cap and Trade starts with the Sotomayor nomination.
If Republicans fail to launch a major effort to defeat her nomination by defining Sotomayor and Obama as anti-U S Constitution, left-wing radicals, it will further discourage and disillusion the grassroots making their involvement in future battles including the 2009 and 2010 elections problematic.
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."
Seeking New Revenue
The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.
The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.
Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.
Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.
Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.
The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.
A VAT's Bottom Line
What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Sales Tax Gains Momentum
Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.
Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.
"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."
Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.
Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.
Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."
Brent Bozell Challenges FCC Chief on Fairness Doctrine
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell has urged acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps to call for a vote on a bill that would end efforts to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
The doctrine requires broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views, which would stifle conservative talk radio.
Copps recently stated that the Fairness Doctrine is "long gone" and "not coming back," Bozell pointed out.
However, Bozell also noted that last summer House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not allow an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine, and instead left it languishing in committee.
Copps has said on two occasions that those who express concern about the doctrine's reinstatement are "conspiracy theorists" who are engaged in "issue mongering" by "resurrecting the straw man of a bygone Fairness Doctrine."
Bozell on Tuesday issued a statement reminding Copps that more than 15 members of Congress have called for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, including Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
Bozell urged Copps to call for a vote on the bill.
The Fairness Doctrine was originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC and repealed in 1987. Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the doctrine's “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.
In his statement, Bozell declared: “I am most appreciative that my friend — FCC Chairman Michael Copps — has no intention of reinstating the anti-First Amendment so-called ‘Fairness’ Doctrine. But his statement that those of us concerned about its reimposition are . . . 'conspiracy theorists’ is off-base given the stated desires of so many members of Congress.
“When this many high-powered elected officials are calling for a return of the mis-named Fairness Doctrine, and are actively opposing a vote on the bill to prevent the FCC from reinstating it, it isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a determination to shut down free speech on talk radio.
“The solution is simple: Chairman Copps should call on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to allow a full, fair, stand-alone vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. That way we will know once and for all how each member of Congress thinks — are they for free speech, or are they for the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine?”
"The e-mail Bag"
OH GOD, Please! Make Me Women
A man was sick and tired of going to work every day while his wife stayed home. He wanted her to see what he went through so he prayed: "Dear Lord: I go to work every day and put in 8 hours while my wife merely stays at home. I want her to know what I go through, so please allow her body to switch with mine for a day. Amen.” God, in his infinite wisdom, granted the man's wish.
The next morning, sure enough, the man awoke as a woman. He arose, cooked breakfast for his mate, awakened the kids, set out their school clothes, fed them breakfast, packed their lunches, drove them to school, came home and picked up the dry cleaning, took it to the cleaners and stopped at the bank to make a deposit, went grocery shopping. Then drove home to put away the groceries, paid the bills, and balanced the checkbook. He cleaned the cat's litter box and bathed the dog. Then it was already 1 P.M. and he hurried to make he beds, do the laundry, vacuum, dust, and sweep and mop the kitchen floor. Ran to the school to pick up the kids and got into an argument with them on the way home. Set out milk and cookies and got the kids organized to do their homework, then set up the ironing board and watched TV while he did the ironing.
At 4:30 he began peeling potatoes and washing vegetables for salad, breaded the pork chops and snapped fresh beans for supper. After supper, he cleaned the kitchen, ran the dishwasher, folded laundry, bathed the kids, and put them to bed. At 9 P.M. He was exhausted and, though his daily chores weren't finished, he went to bed where he was expected to make love, which he managed to get through without complaint. The next morning, he awoke and immediately knelt by the bed and said, Lord, I don't know what I was thinking. I was so wrong to envy my wife's being able to stay home all day. Please, oh please, let us trade back.
"The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, replied: "My son, I feel you have learned your lesson and I will be happy to change things back to the way they were. You'll just have to wait nine months, though. You got pregnant last night."
Husband’s Duties
One day my housework-challenged husband decided to wash his Sweat-shirt. Seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, 'What setting do I use on the washing machine?'
'It depends,' I replied. 'What does it say on your shirt?'
He yelled back, ' OHIO STATE ! '
And they say blondes are dumb...
A Happy Woman
A couple is lying in bed. The man says, 'I am going to make you the happiest woman in the world.'
The woman replies, 'I'll miss you...'
Monday, June 1, 2009
GM Bankruptcy, A UAW Bailout
As GM files for Chapter 11, we ‘should’ expect GM, the UAW leaders, and the bondholders, go enter into US Bankruptcy Court to cancel and/or reorganize the UAW employee contracts so as reasonable labor rates for GM to survive, eliminate waste, and remain in a competitive market for our consumers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2241730/posts
Dr. Mark J. Perry, Professor of Economics and Finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus, University of Michigan http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/07/uaw-pricing-themselves-out-of-market.html, defines the Big 3s’ employee cost. UAW employee’s total labor cost is some $150,000 annually, compared to $96,000 annually for Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. If UAW employee costs were reduced by 33% to 50%, the
employees would be left earning some $75,000 to $100,000 annually; somewhat, a comfortable living income with benefits, and competitively priced trucks and cars in the marketplace. UAW employees earn more than university professors at an average of $93,000 annually.
President Obama and his administration, as well as many on Capitol Hill, are protecting the excessive UAW employees’ cost, at investors’ and taxpayers’ expense. Our U.S. Treasury has already loaned GM $19.4 billion. Now, President Obama is ‘providing’ GM an additional $30.1 billion, in return of 60% of GM shares.
A major problem is this plan allows enormous UAW employees’ cost of labor and benefits to remain. A new UAW agreement is imparting a tiniest dental and eye care cost for retired GM employees, but it does not markedly lower the mostly excessive employee cost, which must be reduced by some 33% to 50% for our taxpayers’ protection. In lieu of reduced employee cost, GM will again require additional funding, or fall into liquidation, leaving bondholders and taxpayers with their losses.
The winners in the short-term are the UAW leaders and employees, President Obama, as well as many other Democrats on Capitol Hill and across America. This plan reimburses unions for some $300 million from the unions dues’ campaign donations, in campaign resources during Election 2008.
The losers in the long-term will be unemployed UAW employees and many others unemployed, American manufacturing as an industry, consumers, bondholders, and the US taxpayers. The most vital finality is economical constitutional freedoms with US Government ownership and management. Taking investor funds, and in return, giving bondholders only 25%, while awarding more to the accurate problem, the UAW membership, is legally robbing from the investors and giving to the unions. Government ownership, in a free economy under this plan, is pure Socialism.
President Obama, Democrats, and the UAW employees are destroying an automotive industry, leaving his/her child(ren), grandchild(ren), etc. without a good job for their own future friend(s) and family member(s) to pursue.
Oh, how shameful is personal greed in mankind!
Dr. Mark J. Perry, Professor of Economics and Finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus, University of Michigan http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/07/uaw-pricing-themselves-out-of-market.html, defines the Big 3s’ employee cost. UAW employee’s total labor cost is some $150,000 annually, compared to $96,000 annually for Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. If UAW employee costs were reduced by 33% to 50%, the
employees would be left earning some $75,000 to $100,000 annually; somewhat, a comfortable living income with benefits, and competitively priced trucks and cars in the marketplace. UAW employees earn more than university professors at an average of $93,000 annually.
President Obama and his administration, as well as many on Capitol Hill, are protecting the excessive UAW employees’ cost, at investors’ and taxpayers’ expense. Our U.S. Treasury has already loaned GM $19.4 billion. Now, President Obama is ‘providing’ GM an additional $30.1 billion, in return of 60% of GM shares.
A major problem is this plan allows enormous UAW employees’ cost of labor and benefits to remain. A new UAW agreement is imparting a tiniest dental and eye care cost for retired GM employees, but it does not markedly lower the mostly excessive employee cost, which must be reduced by some 33% to 50% for our taxpayers’ protection. In lieu of reduced employee cost, GM will again require additional funding, or fall into liquidation, leaving bondholders and taxpayers with their losses.
The winners in the short-term are the UAW leaders and employees, President Obama, as well as many other Democrats on Capitol Hill and across America. This plan reimburses unions for some $300 million from the unions dues’ campaign donations, in campaign resources during Election 2008.
The losers in the long-term will be unemployed UAW employees and many others unemployed, American manufacturing as an industry, consumers, bondholders, and the US taxpayers. The most vital finality is economical constitutional freedoms with US Government ownership and management. Taking investor funds, and in return, giving bondholders only 25%, while awarding more to the accurate problem, the UAW membership, is legally robbing from the investors and giving to the unions. Government ownership, in a free economy under this plan, is pure Socialism.
President Obama, Democrats, and the UAW employees are destroying an automotive industry, leaving his/her child(ren), grandchild(ren), etc. without a good job for their own future friend(s) and family member(s) to pursue.
Oh, how shameful is personal greed in mankind!
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090601
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
It is only by doing things others have not that one can advance. -- George S. Patton
Simplify Your Objectives for Better Results
Ever find that your people aren’t in sync with your organization’s objectives and the results they’re intended to produce? It just might be that your team is confused about what those objectives are!
Maybe your goals are too complex, too illogical, or too difficult to comprehend and embrace. Or perhaps your people are confused by a dizzying array of organizational objectives. Ever hear of CADD – “Cor-porate Attention Deficit Disorder”? Here’s how it happens: One month, management’s focus is to increase revenue. The next month, the focus is on reducing costs. Then, the hiring process is the priority. And 30 days later management is focused again on cutting back. Which one do your people choose to be in sync with? How reasonable is it to expect them to move from one objective to another in a heartbeat?
Imagine what would happen if a synchronized swim team’s choreography was too complex … or if their routines were constantly being changed. What would likely result – great performances or chaos?
Here’s one you can take to the bank: If your goals are constantly changing, you can (and should) expect constant chaos. Some people in your organization will ignore the newest, hot-off-the-presses objective because experience has taught them that it will soon change, anyway. Why bother changing course when another “knee-jerk” change is probably just around the corner? Good question!
Certainly, in today’s fast-paced, global marketplace, change has become a way of life. And changing direction isn’t necessarily a bad thing – as long as a crystal-clear mission for the organization has been established and everyone understands how proposed changes will help them accomplish the mission. Without that understanding, what you have is change in a vacuum. And that typically leads to chaos and discontent.
So, do you best to keep your goals and objectives simple and as consistent as possible. And when you need to alter your course, help employees understand how those changes support, and are in sync with, your organization’s mission – the core of your business that NEVER changes.
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"He alone is my refuge, my place of safety; He is my God, and I am trusting Him." (Psalm 91:2)
Looking back at historical events, we can see how God protected people in the past. When Napoleon's massive French army was preparing to attack Feldkirch, a little town on the Austrian border, the citizens didn't know what to do. When they spotted soldiers on the heights above the little town, a council of citizens was hastily summoned to decide whether the townspeople should try to defend themselves or display the white flag of surrender.
That fateful day happened to be Easter Sunday, so the townspeople gathered in the local church, as was their custom. The pastor rose and said, "Friends, we have been counting on our own strength, and apparently that has failed. As this is the day of our Lord's resurrection, let us just ring the bells, have our services as usual, and leave the matter in His hands. We know only our weaknesses, and the power of God to defend us."
The council accepted his plan, so they rang the church bells. The enemy, hearing the sudden peal, concluded that the Austrian army had arrived during the night to defend the town. Before the service ended, the enemy broke camp and left!
No matter what threatening circumstances are encountered by those of us who truly trust our Lord, our all-powerful God is always with us. He is fully capable of shielding us from harm, even when we are unaware of the danger.
"The Patriot Post"
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." -- James Madison, speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, December 2, 1829
"This Government, the offspring of your own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support." -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right...." -- James Madison, letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786
"Simple Truths"
"When we have done our best, we can await the results in peace." -- Unknown
And Then Some...
"And then some... These three little words are the secret to success.
They are the difference between average people and top people in most companies.
The top people always do what is expected... and then some.
They are thoughtful of others; they are considerate and kind... and then some.
They meet their responsibilities fairly and squarely... and then some.
They are good friends and helpful neighbors... and then some.
They can be counted on in an emergency... and then some.
I am thankful for people like this, for they make the world a better place.
Their spirit of service is summed up in these three little words... And then some."
"The Web"
One Nation Under God
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=91753311300&h=bZIEF&u=YnnV-&ref=mf
"The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." -- Opinion of the court, including Judge Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)
Abortion Doctor Gunned Down at Kansas Church, Suspect in Custody
Sunday, May 31, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html
AP
Jan. 19, 2002: Dr. George Tiller speaks to a small group in a tent during a rally at Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kan.
WICHITA, Kan. — Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.
The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.
Long a focus of national anti-abortion groups, including a summer-long protest in 1991, Tiller was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, Stolz said. Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time.
Johnson County sheriff's spokesman Tom Erickson said Scott Roeder was the man whose car was stopped on Interstate 35 on Sunday, about three hours after the shooting of George Tiller.
Earlier in the day, Wichita police said the suspect was a 51-year-old man from Merriam, Kan., but they refused to identify him by name.
Roeder has not been charged in the slaying, but he was expected to be taken to Wichita for questioning.
10 Questions For a Supreme Court Nominee
by Human Events
05/27/2009
1. Many legal experts say that the nominations process is a wholly political question and not a question that would ever come before the Supreme Court. Would you agree that a U.S. senator can vote for or against a nominee to the Supreme Court for any reason?
2. Nominees frequently come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and treat the committee questioning of a nominee as a test of how much the nominee knows about the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Would you agree that the nomination process should be more than the functional equivalent of a pass fail examination on constitutional law?
3. If a nominee refuses to answer the Senate’s questions about nominee’s philosophy, ideology, and record, then a U.S. senator has little basis to understand whether a nominee will be appropriate for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Do you agree that a senator should vote “nay” on any nominee who, outside of narrow legitimate legal ethics bases, refuses to answer questions about the nominee’s philosophy, ideology and record?
4. Some lawyers believe that the Constitution is a living document, which grows to recognize “new rights,” and others believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its plain words and original meaning. Do you believe that the Constitution is “living,” and if so, how should a judge determine what new rights to create, and what laws passed by the people must be cast aside?
5. If you believe that a case presents a close question where a substantial potential right is at stake, should a judge error on the side of recognizing the right, or allow the democratic process to decide the question, even if that means that the exercise of the disputed “right” is forbidden?
6. Do you believe that beyond the plain text of the Constitution, that there are “emanations” and “penumbras” which contain unwritten and previously unknown provisions that remove issues from democratic determination, and which therefore may be used to strike down popularly enacted state or federal laws?
7. Nominees come before this committee and cite case law without addressing the core of questions, so please don’t site any case law precedent when answering the following question, but merely cite the words of the Constitution and the writings of our Founding Fathers. Do you believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution provides a citizen the right to keep and bear arms?
8. Some on the left believe that judges should look outside the borders of the United States for legal authority to decide cases, even though many countries do not have a Constitutional democracy and no other has the unique and robust individual liberty protections provided in the United States Constitution. Do you believe that judges should rely on international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution? And furthermore, should courts look to international standards in cases determining whether the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has done in recent cases?
9. The President’s has argued that a judge should bring to bear his or her personal experience in judging cases. Do you agree that personal experiences should be a factor, and if so, how can a judge claim to be impartial if using the subjective and unique experiences of a judge as a factor in deciding cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution?
10. Anybody who has been through a job interview gets the inevitable question, why do you want this job? The American people are very skeptical of Washington, D.C., and the trust level between the American people and the federal government is low. I believe that the American people do not want a nominee to be on the court if that nominee has an agenda and if that nominee wants to impose some laundry list of liberal items on the American people -- like gay marriage. I think it is very important to know the motivation for a nominee and why a nominee wants to be on the highest court of the land, so let me simply ask you. Why do you want to be on the Supreme Court?
Sotomayor overturned 60% of the time by Supremes
Rick Moran
May 27, 2009
If senators vote on Sonia Sotomayor's track record, they might want to look at the 60% reversal rate when her decisions reach the Supreme Court.
Writing at The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen offers a reason:
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
The Ricci case is likely to increase that percentage of reversals as most court watchers expect the Supreme Court to right the terrible wrong Sotomayor did the firefighters. The case is just one more indication that Sotomayor is not fit to sit on the court where many of her opinions have been tossed aside.
Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times , thinks that the reversal rate may be a potent line of attack for the opposition:
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
There is no chance Obama will withdraw her name (unless some personal trouble emerges) nor is it likely that she will be defeated on the floor of the senate.
But the American people should be shown just what our president thinks of the Supreme Court to nominate such a candidate to sit in judgment on our most vital cases involving our principles and rights.
Supervisor Asks Woman To Take Down American Flag
Reporting Carol Cavazos
MANSFIELD (CBS 11 News) ―
http://www.nojazzfest.com/chat/showthread.php?t=3802&page=2
Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?
For one Arlington woman, the answer was "no" after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.
Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.
When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. "I was just totally speechless. I was like, 'You're kidding me,'" McLucas said.
McLucas' husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.
Stifling a cry, McLucas said, "I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing."
McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said the supervisor took down Debbie's flag herself.
"The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor," McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher ups had told her some patients' families and visitors had also complained.
"I was told it wouldn't matter if it was only one person," she said. "It would have to come down."
McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.
Kindred Hospital Corporate Headquarters are located in Kentucky. They have yet to make a final decision on the matter. They have not returned our phone calls for comment.
The Kindred Hospital Corporation was chosen as Fortune's most admired for 2009. McLucas hopes they'll back her patriotism.
"I find it very frightening because if I can't display my flag, what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done," McLucas asked.
Directions Home
... ______________
· º o`·, /__/ _/\_ ____/\
`) ( | | | | | | | || |l±±±±| ]
,.-·° ,.-·~·~·-., `°·-. :º° ·~·~·-..,
DIRECTIONS TO OUR FATHER'S HOUSE.
Make a Right onto Believeth Blvd.
Keep straight and go through the Green Light, which is Jesus Christ.
There, you must turn onto the Bridge of Faith, which is over troubled water.
When you get off the bridge, make a Right turn and Keep Straight.
You are on the King's Highway - Heaven-bound.
Keep going for three miles:
One for the Father, One for the Son, and One for the Holy Spirit
Then exit off onto Grace Blvd.
From there, make a Right turn on Gospel Lane.
Keep Straight and then make another Right on Prayer Road.
As you go on your way,
Yield Not to the traffic on Temptation Ave.
Also, avoid SIN STREET because it is a DEAD END.
Pass up Envy Drive, and Hate Avenue.
Also, pass Hypocrisy Street, Gossiping Lane, and Backbiting Blvd.
However, you have to go down Long-suffering Lane, Persecution Blvd. and Trials and Tribulations Ave.
But that's all right, because VICTORY Street is straight ahead!
Prayer works...Group prayers work miracles...
Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation
by Star Parker
Six years ago I wrote a book called "Uncle Sam's Plantation." I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.
I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.
I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960's, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.
A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"
Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.
But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.
Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.
Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."
Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.
There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.
In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education."
Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."
Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.
Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."
Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.
It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.
Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
"The e-mail Bag"
Southern Grandma
Lawyers should never ask a Southern grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.
In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grand motherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died.
The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you asks her if she knows me, I'll throw your sorry asses in jail for contempt."
Red Neck Medical Dictionary
Artery....................The study of paintings
Bacteria..................Back door to cafeteria
Barium....................What doctors do when patients die
Benign....................What you be, after you be eight
Caesarean Section........ A neighborhood in Rome
Cat scan..................Searching for Kitty
Cauterize.................Made eye contact with her
Colic.....................A sheep dog
Coma......................A punctuation mark
Dilate....................To live long
Enema.....................Not a friend
Fester....................Quicker than someone else
Fibula....................A small lie
Impotent..................Distinguished, well known
Labor Pain................Getting hurt at work
Medical Staff.............A Doctor's cane
Morbid....................A higher offer
Nitrates..................Cheaper than day rates
Node......................I knew it
Outpatient................A person who has fainted
Pelvis................. ..Second cousin to Elvis
Post Operative............A letter carrier
Recovery Room.............Place to do upholstery
Rectum....................Nearly killed him
Secretion.................Hiding something
Seizure...................Roman emperor
Tablet....................A small table
Terminal Illness..........Getting sick at the airport
Tumor.....................One plus one more
Urine.....................Opposite of you're out
"Daily Motivations"
It is only by doing things others have not that one can advance. -- George S. Patton
Simplify Your Objectives for Better Results
Ever find that your people aren’t in sync with your organization’s objectives and the results they’re intended to produce? It just might be that your team is confused about what those objectives are!
Maybe your goals are too complex, too illogical, or too difficult to comprehend and embrace. Or perhaps your people are confused by a dizzying array of organizational objectives. Ever hear of CADD – “Cor-porate Attention Deficit Disorder”? Here’s how it happens: One month, management’s focus is to increase revenue. The next month, the focus is on reducing costs. Then, the hiring process is the priority. And 30 days later management is focused again on cutting back. Which one do your people choose to be in sync with? How reasonable is it to expect them to move from one objective to another in a heartbeat?
Imagine what would happen if a synchronized swim team’s choreography was too complex … or if their routines were constantly being changed. What would likely result – great performances or chaos?
Here’s one you can take to the bank: If your goals are constantly changing, you can (and should) expect constant chaos. Some people in your organization will ignore the newest, hot-off-the-presses objective because experience has taught them that it will soon change, anyway. Why bother changing course when another “knee-jerk” change is probably just around the corner? Good question!
Certainly, in today’s fast-paced, global marketplace, change has become a way of life. And changing direction isn’t necessarily a bad thing – as long as a crystal-clear mission for the organization has been established and everyone understands how proposed changes will help them accomplish the mission. Without that understanding, what you have is change in a vacuum. And that typically leads to chaos and discontent.
So, do you best to keep your goals and objectives simple and as consistent as possible. And when you need to alter your course, help employees understand how those changes support, and are in sync with, your organization’s mission – the core of your business that NEVER changes.
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"He alone is my refuge, my place of safety; He is my God, and I am trusting Him." (Psalm 91:2)
Looking back at historical events, we can see how God protected people in the past. When Napoleon's massive French army was preparing to attack Feldkirch, a little town on the Austrian border, the citizens didn't know what to do. When they spotted soldiers on the heights above the little town, a council of citizens was hastily summoned to decide whether the townspeople should try to defend themselves or display the white flag of surrender.
That fateful day happened to be Easter Sunday, so the townspeople gathered in the local church, as was their custom. The pastor rose and said, "Friends, we have been counting on our own strength, and apparently that has failed. As this is the day of our Lord's resurrection, let us just ring the bells, have our services as usual, and leave the matter in His hands. We know only our weaknesses, and the power of God to defend us."
The council accepted his plan, so they rang the church bells. The enemy, hearing the sudden peal, concluded that the Austrian army had arrived during the night to defend the town. Before the service ended, the enemy broke camp and left!
No matter what threatening circumstances are encountered by those of us who truly trust our Lord, our all-powerful God is always with us. He is fully capable of shielding us from harm, even when we are unaware of the danger.
"The Patriot Post"
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." -- James Madison, speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, December 2, 1829
"This Government, the offspring of your own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support." -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right...." -- James Madison, letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786
"Simple Truths"
"When we have done our best, we can await the results in peace." -- Unknown
And Then Some...
"And then some... These three little words are the secret to success.
They are the difference between average people and top people in most companies.
The top people always do what is expected... and then some.
They are thoughtful of others; they are considerate and kind... and then some.
They meet their responsibilities fairly and squarely... and then some.
They are good friends and helpful neighbors... and then some.
They can be counted on in an emergency... and then some.
I am thankful for people like this, for they make the world a better place.
Their spirit of service is summed up in these three little words... And then some."
"The Web"
One Nation Under God
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=91753311300&h=bZIEF&u=YnnV-&ref=mf
"The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." -- Opinion of the court, including Judge Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)
Abortion Doctor Gunned Down at Kansas Church, Suspect in Custody
Sunday, May 31, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html
AP
Jan. 19, 2002: Dr. George Tiller speaks to a small group in a tent during a rally at Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kan.
WICHITA, Kan. — Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.
The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.
Long a focus of national anti-abortion groups, including a summer-long protest in 1991, Tiller was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, Stolz said. Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time.
Johnson County sheriff's spokesman Tom Erickson said Scott Roeder was the man whose car was stopped on Interstate 35 on Sunday, about three hours after the shooting of George Tiller.
Earlier in the day, Wichita police said the suspect was a 51-year-old man from Merriam, Kan., but they refused to identify him by name.
Roeder has not been charged in the slaying, but he was expected to be taken to Wichita for questioning.
10 Questions For a Supreme Court Nominee
by Human Events
05/27/2009
1. Many legal experts say that the nominations process is a wholly political question and not a question that would ever come before the Supreme Court. Would you agree that a U.S. senator can vote for or against a nominee to the Supreme Court for any reason?
2. Nominees frequently come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and treat the committee questioning of a nominee as a test of how much the nominee knows about the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Would you agree that the nomination process should be more than the functional equivalent of a pass fail examination on constitutional law?
3. If a nominee refuses to answer the Senate’s questions about nominee’s philosophy, ideology, and record, then a U.S. senator has little basis to understand whether a nominee will be appropriate for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Do you agree that a senator should vote “nay” on any nominee who, outside of narrow legitimate legal ethics bases, refuses to answer questions about the nominee’s philosophy, ideology and record?
4. Some lawyers believe that the Constitution is a living document, which grows to recognize “new rights,” and others believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its plain words and original meaning. Do you believe that the Constitution is “living,” and if so, how should a judge determine what new rights to create, and what laws passed by the people must be cast aside?
5. If you believe that a case presents a close question where a substantial potential right is at stake, should a judge error on the side of recognizing the right, or allow the democratic process to decide the question, even if that means that the exercise of the disputed “right” is forbidden?
6. Do you believe that beyond the plain text of the Constitution, that there are “emanations” and “penumbras” which contain unwritten and previously unknown provisions that remove issues from democratic determination, and which therefore may be used to strike down popularly enacted state or federal laws?
7. Nominees come before this committee and cite case law without addressing the core of questions, so please don’t site any case law precedent when answering the following question, but merely cite the words of the Constitution and the writings of our Founding Fathers. Do you believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution provides a citizen the right to keep and bear arms?
8. Some on the left believe that judges should look outside the borders of the United States for legal authority to decide cases, even though many countries do not have a Constitutional democracy and no other has the unique and robust individual liberty protections provided in the United States Constitution. Do you believe that judges should rely on international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution? And furthermore, should courts look to international standards in cases determining whether the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has done in recent cases?
9. The President’s has argued that a judge should bring to bear his or her personal experience in judging cases. Do you agree that personal experiences should be a factor, and if so, how can a judge claim to be impartial if using the subjective and unique experiences of a judge as a factor in deciding cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution?
10. Anybody who has been through a job interview gets the inevitable question, why do you want this job? The American people are very skeptical of Washington, D.C., and the trust level between the American people and the federal government is low. I believe that the American people do not want a nominee to be on the court if that nominee has an agenda and if that nominee wants to impose some laundry list of liberal items on the American people -- like gay marriage. I think it is very important to know the motivation for a nominee and why a nominee wants to be on the highest court of the land, so let me simply ask you. Why do you want to be on the Supreme Court?
Sotomayor overturned 60% of the time by Supremes
Rick Moran
May 27, 2009
If senators vote on Sonia Sotomayor's track record, they might want to look at the 60% reversal rate when her decisions reach the Supreme Court.
Writing at The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen offers a reason:
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
The Ricci case is likely to increase that percentage of reversals as most court watchers expect the Supreme Court to right the terrible wrong Sotomayor did the firefighters. The case is just one more indication that Sotomayor is not fit to sit on the court where many of her opinions have been tossed aside.
Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times , thinks that the reversal rate may be a potent line of attack for the opposition:
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
There is no chance Obama will withdraw her name (unless some personal trouble emerges) nor is it likely that she will be defeated on the floor of the senate.
But the American people should be shown just what our president thinks of the Supreme Court to nominate such a candidate to sit in judgment on our most vital cases involving our principles and rights.
Supervisor Asks Woman To Take Down American Flag
Reporting Carol Cavazos
MANSFIELD (CBS 11 News) ―
http://www.nojazzfest.com/chat/showthread.php?t=3802&page=2
Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?
For one Arlington woman, the answer was "no" after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.
Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.
When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. "I was just totally speechless. I was like, 'You're kidding me,'" McLucas said.
McLucas' husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.
Stifling a cry, McLucas said, "I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing."
McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said the supervisor took down Debbie's flag herself.
"The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor," McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher ups had told her some patients' families and visitors had also complained.
"I was told it wouldn't matter if it was only one person," she said. "It would have to come down."
McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.
Kindred Hospital Corporate Headquarters are located in Kentucky. They have yet to make a final decision on the matter. They have not returned our phone calls for comment.
The Kindred Hospital Corporation was chosen as Fortune's most admired for 2009. McLucas hopes they'll back her patriotism.
"I find it very frightening because if I can't display my flag, what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done," McLucas asked.
Directions Home
... ______________
· º o`·, /__/ _/\_ ____/\
`) ( | | | | | | | || |l±±±±| ]
,.-·° ,.-·~·~·-., `°·-. :º° ·~·~·-..,
DIRECTIONS TO OUR FATHER'S HOUSE.
Make a Right onto Believeth Blvd.
Keep straight and go through the Green Light, which is Jesus Christ.
There, you must turn onto the Bridge of Faith, which is over troubled water.
When you get off the bridge, make a Right turn and Keep Straight.
You are on the King's Highway - Heaven-bound.
Keep going for three miles:
One for the Father, One for the Son, and One for the Holy Spirit
Then exit off onto Grace Blvd.
From there, make a Right turn on Gospel Lane.
Keep Straight and then make another Right on Prayer Road.
As you go on your way,
Yield Not to the traffic on Temptation Ave.
Also, avoid SIN STREET because it is a DEAD END.
Pass up Envy Drive, and Hate Avenue.
Also, pass Hypocrisy Street, Gossiping Lane, and Backbiting Blvd.
However, you have to go down Long-suffering Lane, Persecution Blvd. and Trials and Tribulations Ave.
But that's all right, because VICTORY Street is straight ahead!
Prayer works...Group prayers work miracles...
Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation
by Star Parker
Six years ago I wrote a book called "Uncle Sam's Plantation." I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.
I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.
I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960's, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.
A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"
Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.
But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.
Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.
Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."
Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.
There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.
In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education."
Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."
Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.
Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."
Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.
It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.
Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
"The e-mail Bag"
Southern Grandma
Lawyers should never ask a Southern grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.
In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grand motherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died.
The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you asks her if she knows me, I'll throw your sorry asses in jail for contempt."
Red Neck Medical Dictionary
Artery....................The study of paintings
Bacteria..................Back door to cafeteria
Barium....................What doctors do when patients die
Benign....................What you be, after you be eight
Caesarean Section........ A neighborhood in Rome
Cat scan..................Searching for Kitty
Cauterize.................Made eye contact with her
Colic.....................A sheep dog
Coma......................A punctuation mark
Dilate....................To live long
Enema.....................Not a friend
Fester....................Quicker than someone else
Fibula....................A small lie
Impotent..................Distinguished, well known
Labor Pain................Getting hurt at work
Medical Staff.............A Doctor's cane
Morbid....................A higher offer
Nitrates..................Cheaper than day rates
Node......................I knew it
Outpatient................A person who has fainted
Pelvis................. ..Second cousin to Elvis
Post Operative............A letter carrier
Recovery Room.............Place to do upholstery
Rectum....................Nearly killed him
Secretion.................Hiding something
Seizure...................Roman emperor
Tablet....................A small table
Terminal Illness..........Getting sick at the airport
Tumor.....................One plus one more
Urine.....................Opposite of you're out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)