Each and every time President Obama holds a “News Conference”, a “Town Hall”, or otherwise talks into the microphone with a TV camera about a weakening economy, he continues to blame the Bush Administration. He started this debate early upon his swearing-in, and since then always mentions the fact that this is the worst recession since the “Great Depression”. Six (6) months into Presidential Obama’s own administration, the economy is weakening. At President Obama’s request, Capitol Hill legislators have passed an economic stimulus total, or giveaway if you choose to define it, exceeding $1.788 Trillion. Obama and his own administration members say they just underestimated the economy. How can Obama underestimate the economy when he very early said it was as enormous as the great depression? How did President Obama and the Democrat majority on Capitol Hill expect a $1.788 Trillion giveaway be the corrective medicine to a fragile economy? Does Americans really know and understand what $1.788 Trillion Dollars of deficit spending in our economy is all about? Taxpayers owe these deficits to lenders such as China, Saudi Arabia, etc.; some of these people and their governments don’t like Americans and/or our values. Would you like to see, and compare, what $1 Trillion may look like? See:
http://www..youtube.com/watch?v=1HFGLXLFzzI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailynewscaster%2Ecom%2F2009%2F04%2F10%2Fwhat%2Ddoes%2Da%2Dtrillion%2Ddollars%2Dlook%2Dlike%2F&feature=player_embedded
Obama continues to say he inherited a $1.3 Trillion budget deficit. What he is leaving out is the fact that he himself said during the campaign that he was in contact with leaders on Capitol Hill to support the $700 Billion Stimulus #1 as reported on http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/goal-stimulus-p.html.
Sen. Obama then voted on October 1, 2008 for Stimulus #1 (This one was charged to President Bush) (On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213#position
As President-elect, Obama pushed for an additional $250 Billion Stimulus (On the Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 5 )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00005
Be careful with this voting record. It is like a reverse vote for Obama and the majority Democrats to win this giveaway! - oyh
On February 13, 2009, the US Senate passed, for this recession, Stimulus #2. This was President Obama’s Stimulus #1 (H.R 1)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064n for an additional $838 Billion Stimulus “Big Fat Pork” loaded giveaway.
At what point in time will President Obama accept his own responsibility for his economic failures based on his own inability to recognize higher taxes, and recklessly spending taxpayers’ monies, are not the therapeutic medication for an ailing economy? When Mr. President? When will the George Bush administration end? When will you accept your own fiscal responsibility during this recession?
While we all pray for President Obama, America, and our world economy, President Obama, our US Senate, and US Congress cannot continue to increase taxes, and excessively outspend the intake of our taxpayers’ money. Lowering taxes and lowering spending will rebuild a fragile free economy, and continue for an economic expansion. Wake up and smell the coffee of success. It is, to a great extent, like a rising sun!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090723
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
The key is not to prioritize what's on the schedule, but to schedule your priorities. -- Stephen Covey
All things are difficult before they are easy. -- John Norley
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Now I can walk in Your presence, O God, in Your life-giving light." (Psalm 56:13)
Our confidence is in the ever-present nature of God. We can be sure that He sees us, walks with us, and loves us no matter where we are. In fact, God wants us to "consciously" live in His presence every day.
Brother Lawrence, a humble monk of the 16th century, authored a classic little book, The Practice of the Presence of God. For fifteen years, his responsibility was to wash greasy pots and pans in the monastery - a job he disliked. But practicing the presence of God transformed what he considered a chore into an exciting privilege. As Brother Lawrence said, "The most holy and necessary practice in our spiritual life is the presence of God. That means finding constant pleasure in His divine company..." Joseph de Beaufort, his close friend, says of Brother Lawrence, "The worst trial he could imagine was losing his sense of God's presence."
Every morning, I make it a practice to fall to my knees in prayer beside my bed. I ask my Lord to live His life in and through me throughout the day. My request is that He will walk around in my body, speak with my lips, use my hands and feet for His glory, and control my thoughts so they honor Him.
I encourage you to begin a daily practice of praising God during all your activities. But praise is just the beginning of a lifestyle of practicing the presence of God. Remember, wherever you go, He is already there.
"The Patriot Post"
"It behooves you, therefore, to think and act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail." -- Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1775
INSIGHT
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end." -- English author George Orwell (1903-1950)
GOVERNMENT
"Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections." -- George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
POLITICAL FUTURES
"[Al] Franken is an admitted clown. As such, he will be the only admitted clown in the United States Senate, though he will be seated with such clownish figures as Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Harry Reid. ... Upon hearing of the [Minnesota Supreme] court's decision, Franken joked that he was 'thrilled and honored by the faith that Minnesotans have placed in' him. That is not a very funny joke, but Franken is not funny. By 'Minnesotans,' he probably is attempting irony in referring to his supporters on vote canvassing boards in several left-leaning counties, who turned up a sufficient number of thitherto-uncounted votes to give him the edge. In the Nov.. 4 election, Coleman won by 725 votes. After a recount, he still won by 215. Then Franken's 'Minnesotans' got busy canvassing. They demanded that votes once disqualified in their counties be counted. They found thousands of absentee ballots previously rejected for such indelicacies as fabricated addresses. Coleman cried foul and asked that one statewide standard be applied to all recounts. However, he got nowhere with this plea for equal protection of the law, and in the meantime, Franken's larcenous operatives picked up 1,350 more absentee votes, some bearing the names of pop singers. Ultimately, Franken's team managed a 312-vote victory from the 2.9 million votes cast. The Wall Street Journal was not alone in its judgment that 'Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.'" -- columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell
CULTURE
"The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called 'King of Pop.' Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the 'news' business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the 'news' of Congress and recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential? An alien arriving from space would find him celebrated for dressing in shiny socks and dancing the 'moonwalk.' His music broke sales records and sets dance floors hopping, and his videos made people say 'I want my MTV.' But all this happened a long time ago, when MTV was a music channel. That is not how Michael Jackson dominated the pop-culture news scene for the past 15 years or so. What about Michael Jackson, the man? Was he, in the end, a good man? It seemed no one asked. Everyone wanted to celebrate the mystique of Jackson, but no one was comfortable focusing on the real Michael Jackson.... The coverage was an ocean wide -- and an inch deep." -- Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell
THE LAST WORD
"Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents -- call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever -- do. Which brings us ... to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the 'organizing' streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? Well, he said that he would raise capital gains tax rates, even if it reduced revenues, as a matter of fairness. It's only fair to make everyone poorer if you believe profits are inherently evil. He told Joe the Plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. He talked about confiscating Exxon Mobil's profits and giving them to consumers, saying 'they are not going to give up those profits easily.' He called Chrysler creditors 'speculators' and castigated them for refusing to accept his extortionist reorganization plan. He berated Wall Street for making profits, saying 'now is not (the) time' for them to 'rake in profits.' He and his wife even railed against the pursuit of profit in their respective commencement addresses. He abused the power of his office to steal money from GM and Chrysler shareholders and transfer it to the proletariat, I mean, the United Auto Workers. He redistributed taxpayer money from those who have paid their mortgages to those who have not. He is desperately trying to spread the misery and impoverish businesses and individuals through his cap and tax plan, which no proponent of economic growth and prosperity would consider supporting. And in addition to gobbling up other businesses and industries, he is trying to nationalize medicine -- to siphon off the evil surplus value charged by doctors and insurance companies -- on the flawed Marxist theory that he can reduce costs overall, when the reason health care costs have already skyrocketed is that market forces have been suppressed in the industry. You don't have to call him a Marxist, but at least understand where his heart is." -- columnist David Limbaugh
"Heritage Foundation"
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.
We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an ?Exchange-participating health benefits plan,? all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.
President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:
Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.
Quick Hits:
Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: “Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill … the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. … The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”
According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion.
Thanks to Obama’s “sweeping agenda,” the lobbyists on K Street are “awash in cash.”
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop ?standards of measuring gender? — as opposed to using the traditional “male” and “female” categories — in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
"The Web"
Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.
Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.
The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.
Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.
"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."
But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.
"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."
"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.
Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."
The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."
"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."
Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.
Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.
"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."
While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.
"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.
Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.
"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.
The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:
"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."
"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.
But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."
Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.
While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.
The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.
ObamaCare is a sick joke
By Jason Lee
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamacare_is_a_sick_joke.html
As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored...
By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.
Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.
The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you're happy, don't get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the bill proposed by House Democrats would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion.
Team Obama says the CBO has failed to account for plans to reduce waste and cut services. Unfortunately, reducing waste would account for only about 1% of ObamaCare "savings." Any other potential savings would have to come from reductions in patient care services.
In its "keep the plan deficit-neutral" charade, the Obama Administration indicates that it is counting on reductions in patient care in the form of cuts to the Medicare health program for the elderly. However, the American Medical Association, in its controversial letter of support for the Democrats' plan, thanks House leaders for repealing $230 billion of Medicare cuts.
Team Obama is also counting on savings from prevention initiatives. Legislation pushed by Senate Democrats mentions "prevention" repeatedly. But as the CBO has repeatedly pointed out, prevention doesn't generally save money.
Obama tells us he wants a public plan comparable to the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan Congress enjoys. This notion is a farce. Congress has a high-choice cafeteria plan that is indeed paid for by the public, but it is not run by the government.
Congress enjoys very special perks the rest of us can only dream about. There is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, and Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Is Congress going to provide us with VIP treatment?
ObamaCare will implement an oppressive health care bureaucracy with eye-popping complexity that would make Rube Goldberg's head spin.
When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn't think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama's sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.
The halcyon days of the 2008 campaign are long gone. Elections have consequences - broken promises, for example. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that Obama and friends will have to play by the rules they implement, right?
Wrong!
"Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill."
Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress "an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan." Fleming's resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.
Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can't blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.
Americans have lost their appetite for hypocrisy, reckless spending, and the intrusion of incompetent government into every aspect of their lives. Obama is trying to address one of these concerns by promising that he "won't sign any health-care bill that adds to the deficit", but it's apparently too little and too late. Support for ObamaCare is crumbling. Consider some of the most recent observations:
The Washington Post: "Months of relative cooperation among disparate interest groups in the heath-care reform debate appear to be coming to an end..."
Reuters: "Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama's signature domestic issue and a major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time..."
CNN: Six key senators - three Democrats, one independent and two moderate Republicans - sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for a slowdown in the push for a health care overhaul, in light of the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that the Democratic plan currently being considered would not cut medical costs.
WSB: "Last week saw a rollercoaster of events that seemingly gave momentum to the controversial health reform initiative and then saw it slowed down..."
Politico: Jim DeMint apparently smells the possibility of victory. "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The Associated Press: "Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?"
Obama spent vast quantities of political capital and strained his credibility to the breaking point with the Chicken Little schtick he put on to sell the stimulus package. When it comes to healthcare, perhaps the sky is falling, but Americans don't seem to be listening anymore.
Obama's popularity is sagging, the tone is changing, and even his cheerleaders are losing enthusiasm. "What's in it for you? Pain and discipline!", they exclaim. "Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?"
When Obama took the White House, giving Democrats solid control of Washington, government-dominated healthcare seemed to be an inevitability. Now the picture isn't so clear. Conservatives have many reasons to be optimistic about their opportunity to defeat ObamaCare.
White House: Obama Made Same Abortion Pledge to Pope That He Made to Planned Parenthood
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51304
(CNSNews.com) - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Monday that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007.
In a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama decried the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In a question-and-answer session after the speech, Obama said the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
While Obama did acknowledge a need to find “common ground” in the speech to Planned Parenthood, he spoke of it in the context of promoting contraception--not in the context of persuading pregnant women not to abort their unborn children.
“There’s a moral component to prevention. And we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging it,” said Obama. “As parents, as family members, we need to encourage young people to show reverence toward sexuality and intimacy. We need to teach that not just to the young girls, we need to teach it to those young boys. But even as we are teaching those lessons, we should never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control or a lifetime of illness because she doesn’t understand how to protect herself. That’s just commonsense. There’s common ground on behalf of commonsense—there we have an opportunity to move forward and agree.”
While visiting the Vatican earlier this month, Obama reportedly promised the pope he would work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. As reported by Agence French Presse, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Obama made the promise "very explicit" during his 40-minute meeting with the pontiff.
"The pontiff told me that President Obama affirmed his personal commitment to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States," Lombardi said, according to AFP.
On Monday, CNSNews.com asked Gibbs if Obama’s commitment to the pope to work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States means he supports an amendment to the health-care reform bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) that would prohibit federal funds from going to abortion through federally subsidized health-insurance programs.
Gibbs interrupted the question to say that Obama had said the same thing to Planned Parenthood in 2007 that he said to the pope this year.
CNSNews.com: “Going back to the President's visit to the Vatican, he reportedly told the Pope that he would work to and do all he could to reduce the number of abortions—”
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs: “I think he said -- he said that in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, so yes.”
CNSNews.com: “Could someone reasonably say that in doing all you can do to reduce the number of abortions would also mean supporting the Hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit federal funds going to abortion?”
Gibbs: “Well, I have not seen the Hatch amendment. I know the president believes that current policy--certainly current policy for Medicaid prohibits federal funding for abortions. That’s the Hyde amendment. I think when it comes to designing a benefit package, I think the president and this administration agree that that's--a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.”
On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag would not rule out that he final health-care bill would include federal funding for abortion—just as Gibbs did not rule it out in his answer at the press briefing today.
“I think that that [abortion funding] will wind up being part of the debate,” Orszag told Fox News. “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”
Last week, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee declined to adopt the Hatch amendment, forbidding federal funding of abortion, in its version of the health-care reform bill.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, defended the bill’s prospective funding of abortion.
“We like the idea that people have choices and, indeed, the law of the land permits people to make those choices, and we respect that, and we are going to pursue that,” Dodd told CNSNews.com last week when asked about abortion funding in the bill. “Again, we do not want to discriminate when people have--they have convictions, moral convictions and religious convictions.”
PANCAKES
Six year old Brandon decided one Saturday morning to fix his parents pancakes. He found a big bowl and spoon, pulled a chair to the counter, opened the cupboard and pulled out the heavy flour canister, spilling it on the floor. He scooped some of the flour into the bowl with his hands, mixed in most of a cup of milk and added some sugar, leaving a floury trail on the floor which by now had a few tracks left by his kitten.
Brandon was covered with flour and getting frustrated. He wanted this to be something very good for Mom and Dad, but it was getting very bad. He didn't know what to do next, neither to put it all into the oven or on the stove, (and he didn't know how the stove worked!).
Suddenly he saw his kitten licking from the bowl of mix and reached to push her away, knocking the egg carton to the floor. Frantically he tried to clean up this monumental mess but slipped on the eggs, getting his pajamas white and sticky. And just then he saw Dad standing at the door. Big crocodile tears welled up in Brandon's eyes.
All he'd wanted to do was something good, but he'd made a terrible mess. He was sure a scolding was coming, maybe even a spanking. But his father just watched him. Then, walking through the mess, he picked up his crying son, hugged him and loved him, getting his own panamas white and sticky in the process.
That's how God deals with us. We try to do something good in life, but it turns into a mess. Our marriage gets all sticky or we insult a friend or we can't stand our job or our health goes sour. Sometimes we just stand there in tears because we can't think of anything else to do. That's when God picks us up and loves us and forgives us, even though some of our mess gets all over Him. But just because we might mess up, we can't stop trying to "make pancakes", for God or for others. Sooner or later we'll get it right, and then they'll be glad we tried.
I was thinking... and I wondered if I had any wounds needing to be healed, friendships that need rekindling or three words needing to be said, sometimes, "I love you" can heal & bless!
Remind every one of your friends and family that you love them. It's amazing at what those three little words, a smile, and a reminder like this can do.
Just in case I haven't told you lately... “I LOVE YA”!!!
Please pass some of this love on to others... suppose one morning you were called to God; do all your friends and family that they will know you love them!
And never stop making pancakes.
Do You Remember 1987.....
http://dailythoughtpad.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-you-remember-1987.html
I had forgotten all of this. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it?
Do you remember 1987.......
Trade Towers Before 9/11/2001
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.
A couple of people laughed at the attempt.. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
9/11
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore! (Thank you Al, you are such an embarrassment to Tennessee !!)
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.
.. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
After 9/11/2001
The Morals and Question from This Story…
If we don’t teach and learn history… there is a grave consequence!
It is a tough world and we need tough leadership!
Our own government, as that of most countries, lies to us, censor and skews the news and re-writes history!
Many of the same plus new “Progressives” are in power!!
If Al Gore was this wrong in favor of Osamba Bin Laden and against an American Hero like Lt. Oliver North can you really buy into his Global Warming… ah Climate Change misinformation galvanized by the Dem’s and Obama’s Cap-and-Trade (uh… Cap-and-Tax) Bill?
The Israelis were right…
Who will be the next Mohammad Atta? Perhaps one of the released Gitmo Detainees?
If you want God to Bless America, you need America to remember God’s name!
History repeats itself, if you don’t the lessons the first time
The Obama Administration Grants Miranda Rights Rights To Detainees In Afghanistan.
by Stephen F. Hayes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp?pg=1
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today -- foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they're reading them their rights -- Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning -- so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people -- 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"
Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the
CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."
One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America -- except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.
Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income, eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House Democrats' plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building a new bureaucracy. Heller proposed using existing state and federal databases created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.
If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.
The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., calls the proposition "too politically explosive."
But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.
"Explosive"? The applause certainly was. Obama's praise of the weakened immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from members of Congress at the S-CHIP signing event.
Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.
The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.
For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegal aliens are not getting free health care, and that even if they were, they would not be not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing non-emergency health services for illegal immigrants.
"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP. The Texas state comptroller put the price tag for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today reported that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28 percent in North Carolina alone. Clinics across the Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant care costs.
At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. "I'm just mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.
Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me
Written By Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio
"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.
It is the most-requested column I've ever written."
My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and
parents will. Stay in touch.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their
journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God
never blinks.
16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is
up to you and no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no
for an answer.
21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie.
Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.
22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain.
25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will
this matter?'
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did
or didn't do.
35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood.
38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's,we'd
grab ours back.
41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
42. The best is yet to come.
43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift."
Friends are the family that we choose for ourselves.
"The e-mail Bag
Definition of Stop…
A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriff's Deputy.
The lawyer thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he's sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputies expense.
Deputy says, "License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What for?"
Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign "
Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."
Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"
Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"
Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not, you let me go and don't give me a ticket."
Deputy says, "Sounds fair. Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the crap out of the lawyer and says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"
"Daily Motivations"
The key is not to prioritize what's on the schedule, but to schedule your priorities. -- Stephen Covey
All things are difficult before they are easy. -- John Norley
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Now I can walk in Your presence, O God, in Your life-giving light." (Psalm 56:13)
Our confidence is in the ever-present nature of God. We can be sure that He sees us, walks with us, and loves us no matter where we are. In fact, God wants us to "consciously" live in His presence every day.
Brother Lawrence, a humble monk of the 16th century, authored a classic little book, The Practice of the Presence of God. For fifteen years, his responsibility was to wash greasy pots and pans in the monastery - a job he disliked. But practicing the presence of God transformed what he considered a chore into an exciting privilege. As Brother Lawrence said, "The most holy and necessary practice in our spiritual life is the presence of God. That means finding constant pleasure in His divine company..." Joseph de Beaufort, his close friend, says of Brother Lawrence, "The worst trial he could imagine was losing his sense of God's presence."
Every morning, I make it a practice to fall to my knees in prayer beside my bed. I ask my Lord to live His life in and through me throughout the day. My request is that He will walk around in my body, speak with my lips, use my hands and feet for His glory, and control my thoughts so they honor Him.
I encourage you to begin a daily practice of praising God during all your activities. But praise is just the beginning of a lifestyle of practicing the presence of God. Remember, wherever you go, He is already there.
"The Patriot Post"
"It behooves you, therefore, to think and act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail." -- Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1775
INSIGHT
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end." -- English author George Orwell (1903-1950)
GOVERNMENT
"Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections." -- George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
POLITICAL FUTURES
"[Al] Franken is an admitted clown. As such, he will be the only admitted clown in the United States Senate, though he will be seated with such clownish figures as Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Harry Reid. ... Upon hearing of the [Minnesota Supreme] court's decision, Franken joked that he was 'thrilled and honored by the faith that Minnesotans have placed in' him. That is not a very funny joke, but Franken is not funny. By 'Minnesotans,' he probably is attempting irony in referring to his supporters on vote canvassing boards in several left-leaning counties, who turned up a sufficient number of thitherto-uncounted votes to give him the edge. In the Nov.. 4 election, Coleman won by 725 votes. After a recount, he still won by 215. Then Franken's 'Minnesotans' got busy canvassing. They demanded that votes once disqualified in their counties be counted. They found thousands of absentee ballots previously rejected for such indelicacies as fabricated addresses. Coleman cried foul and asked that one statewide standard be applied to all recounts. However, he got nowhere with this plea for equal protection of the law, and in the meantime, Franken's larcenous operatives picked up 1,350 more absentee votes, some bearing the names of pop singers. Ultimately, Franken's team managed a 312-vote victory from the 2.9 million votes cast. The Wall Street Journal was not alone in its judgment that 'Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.'" -- columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell
CULTURE
"The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called 'King of Pop.' Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the 'news' business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the 'news' of Congress and recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential? An alien arriving from space would find him celebrated for dressing in shiny socks and dancing the 'moonwalk.' His music broke sales records and sets dance floors hopping, and his videos made people say 'I want my MTV.' But all this happened a long time ago, when MTV was a music channel. That is not how Michael Jackson dominated the pop-culture news scene for the past 15 years or so. What about Michael Jackson, the man? Was he, in the end, a good man? It seemed no one asked. Everyone wanted to celebrate the mystique of Jackson, but no one was comfortable focusing on the real Michael Jackson.... The coverage was an ocean wide -- and an inch deep." -- Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell
THE LAST WORD
"Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents -- call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever -- do. Which brings us ... to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the 'organizing' streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? Well, he said that he would raise capital gains tax rates, even if it reduced revenues, as a matter of fairness. It's only fair to make everyone poorer if you believe profits are inherently evil. He told Joe the Plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. He talked about confiscating Exxon Mobil's profits and giving them to consumers, saying 'they are not going to give up those profits easily.' He called Chrysler creditors 'speculators' and castigated them for refusing to accept his extortionist reorganization plan. He berated Wall Street for making profits, saying 'now is not (the) time' for them to 'rake in profits.' He and his wife even railed against the pursuit of profit in their respective commencement addresses. He abused the power of his office to steal money from GM and Chrysler shareholders and transfer it to the proletariat, I mean, the United Auto Workers. He redistributed taxpayer money from those who have paid their mortgages to those who have not. He is desperately trying to spread the misery and impoverish businesses and individuals through his cap and tax plan, which no proponent of economic growth and prosperity would consider supporting. And in addition to gobbling up other businesses and industries, he is trying to nationalize medicine -- to siphon off the evil surplus value charged by doctors and insurance companies -- on the flawed Marxist theory that he can reduce costs overall, when the reason health care costs have already skyrocketed is that market forces have been suppressed in the industry. You don't have to call him a Marxist, but at least understand where his heart is." -- columnist David Limbaugh
"Heritage Foundation"
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.
We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an ?Exchange-participating health benefits plan,? all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.
President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:
Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.
Quick Hits:
Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: “Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill … the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. … The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”
According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion.
Thanks to Obama’s “sweeping agenda,” the lobbyists on K Street are “awash in cash.”
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop ?standards of measuring gender? — as opposed to using the traditional “male” and “female” categories — in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
"The Web"
Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.
Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/
As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.
The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.
Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.
"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."
But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.
"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."
"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.
Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."
The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."
"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."
Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.
Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.
"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."
While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.
"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.
Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.
"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.
The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:
"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."
"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.
But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."
Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.
While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.
The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.
ObamaCare is a sick joke
By Jason Lee
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamacare_is_a_sick_joke.html
As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored...
By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.
Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.
The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you're happy, don't get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the bill proposed by House Democrats would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion.
Team Obama says the CBO has failed to account for plans to reduce waste and cut services. Unfortunately, reducing waste would account for only about 1% of ObamaCare "savings." Any other potential savings would have to come from reductions in patient care services.
In its "keep the plan deficit-neutral" charade, the Obama Administration indicates that it is counting on reductions in patient care in the form of cuts to the Medicare health program for the elderly. However, the American Medical Association, in its controversial letter of support for the Democrats' plan, thanks House leaders for repealing $230 billion of Medicare cuts.
Team Obama is also counting on savings from prevention initiatives. Legislation pushed by Senate Democrats mentions "prevention" repeatedly. But as the CBO has repeatedly pointed out, prevention doesn't generally save money.
Obama tells us he wants a public plan comparable to the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan Congress enjoys. This notion is a farce. Congress has a high-choice cafeteria plan that is indeed paid for by the public, but it is not run by the government.
Congress enjoys very special perks the rest of us can only dream about. There is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, and Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Is Congress going to provide us with VIP treatment?
ObamaCare will implement an oppressive health care bureaucracy with eye-popping complexity that would make Rube Goldberg's head spin.
When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn't think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama's sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.
The halcyon days of the 2008 campaign are long gone. Elections have consequences - broken promises, for example. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that Obama and friends will have to play by the rules they implement, right?
Wrong!
"Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill."
Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress "an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan." Fleming's resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.
Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can't blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.
Americans have lost their appetite for hypocrisy, reckless spending, and the intrusion of incompetent government into every aspect of their lives. Obama is trying to address one of these concerns by promising that he "won't sign any health-care bill that adds to the deficit", but it's apparently too little and too late. Support for ObamaCare is crumbling. Consider some of the most recent observations:
The Washington Post: "Months of relative cooperation among disparate interest groups in the heath-care reform debate appear to be coming to an end..."
Reuters: "Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama's signature domestic issue and a major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time..."
CNN: Six key senators - three Democrats, one independent and two moderate Republicans - sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for a slowdown in the push for a health care overhaul, in light of the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that the Democratic plan currently being considered would not cut medical costs.
WSB: "Last week saw a rollercoaster of events that seemingly gave momentum to the controversial health reform initiative and then saw it slowed down..."
Politico: Jim DeMint apparently smells the possibility of victory. "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The Associated Press: "Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?"
Obama spent vast quantities of political capital and strained his credibility to the breaking point with the Chicken Little schtick he put on to sell the stimulus package. When it comes to healthcare, perhaps the sky is falling, but Americans don't seem to be listening anymore.
Obama's popularity is sagging, the tone is changing, and even his cheerleaders are losing enthusiasm. "What's in it for you? Pain and discipline!", they exclaim. "Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?"
When Obama took the White House, giving Democrats solid control of Washington, government-dominated healthcare seemed to be an inevitability. Now the picture isn't so clear. Conservatives have many reasons to be optimistic about their opportunity to defeat ObamaCare.
White House: Obama Made Same Abortion Pledge to Pope That He Made to Planned Parenthood
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51304
(CNSNews.com) - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Monday that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007.
In a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama decried the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In a question-and-answer session after the speech, Obama said the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
While Obama did acknowledge a need to find “common ground” in the speech to Planned Parenthood, he spoke of it in the context of promoting contraception--not in the context of persuading pregnant women not to abort their unborn children.
“There’s a moral component to prevention. And we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging it,” said Obama. “As parents, as family members, we need to encourage young people to show reverence toward sexuality and intimacy. We need to teach that not just to the young girls, we need to teach it to those young boys. But even as we are teaching those lessons, we should never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control or a lifetime of illness because she doesn’t understand how to protect herself. That’s just commonsense. There’s common ground on behalf of commonsense—there we have an opportunity to move forward and agree.”
While visiting the Vatican earlier this month, Obama reportedly promised the pope he would work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. As reported by Agence French Presse, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Obama made the promise "very explicit" during his 40-minute meeting with the pontiff.
"The pontiff told me that President Obama affirmed his personal commitment to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States," Lombardi said, according to AFP.
On Monday, CNSNews.com asked Gibbs if Obama’s commitment to the pope to work to reduce the number of abortions in the United States means he supports an amendment to the health-care reform bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) that would prohibit federal funds from going to abortion through federally subsidized health-insurance programs.
Gibbs interrupted the question to say that Obama had said the same thing to Planned Parenthood in 2007 that he said to the pope this year.
CNSNews.com: “Going back to the President's visit to the Vatican, he reportedly told the Pope that he would work to and do all he could to reduce the number of abortions—”
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs: “I think he said -- he said that in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, so yes.”
CNSNews.com: “Could someone reasonably say that in doing all you can do to reduce the number of abortions would also mean supporting the Hatch amendment to the health care bill that would prohibit federal funds going to abortion?”
Gibbs: “Well, I have not seen the Hatch amendment. I know the president believes that current policy--certainly current policy for Medicaid prohibits federal funding for abortions. That’s the Hyde amendment. I think when it comes to designing a benefit package, I think the president and this administration agree that that's--a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.”
On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag would not rule out that he final health-care bill would include federal funding for abortion—just as Gibbs did not rule it out in his answer at the press briefing today.
“I think that that [abortion funding] will wind up being part of the debate,” Orszag told Fox News. “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”
Last week, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee declined to adopt the Hatch amendment, forbidding federal funding of abortion, in its version of the health-care reform bill.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, defended the bill’s prospective funding of abortion.
“We like the idea that people have choices and, indeed, the law of the land permits people to make those choices, and we respect that, and we are going to pursue that,” Dodd told CNSNews.com last week when asked about abortion funding in the bill. “Again, we do not want to discriminate when people have--they have convictions, moral convictions and religious convictions.”
PANCAKES
Six year old Brandon decided one Saturday morning to fix his parents pancakes. He found a big bowl and spoon, pulled a chair to the counter, opened the cupboard and pulled out the heavy flour canister, spilling it on the floor. He scooped some of the flour into the bowl with his hands, mixed in most of a cup of milk and added some sugar, leaving a floury trail on the floor which by now had a few tracks left by his kitten.
Brandon was covered with flour and getting frustrated. He wanted this to be something very good for Mom and Dad, but it was getting very bad. He didn't know what to do next, neither to put it all into the oven or on the stove, (and he didn't know how the stove worked!).
Suddenly he saw his kitten licking from the bowl of mix and reached to push her away, knocking the egg carton to the floor. Frantically he tried to clean up this monumental mess but slipped on the eggs, getting his pajamas white and sticky. And just then he saw Dad standing at the door. Big crocodile tears welled up in Brandon's eyes.
All he'd wanted to do was something good, but he'd made a terrible mess. He was sure a scolding was coming, maybe even a spanking. But his father just watched him. Then, walking through the mess, he picked up his crying son, hugged him and loved him, getting his own panamas white and sticky in the process.
That's how God deals with us. We try to do something good in life, but it turns into a mess. Our marriage gets all sticky or we insult a friend or we can't stand our job or our health goes sour. Sometimes we just stand there in tears because we can't think of anything else to do. That's when God picks us up and loves us and forgives us, even though some of our mess gets all over Him. But just because we might mess up, we can't stop trying to "make pancakes", for God or for others. Sooner or later we'll get it right, and then they'll be glad we tried.
I was thinking... and I wondered if I had any wounds needing to be healed, friendships that need rekindling or three words needing to be said, sometimes, "I love you" can heal & bless!
Remind every one of your friends and family that you love them. It's amazing at what those three little words, a smile, and a reminder like this can do.
Just in case I haven't told you lately... “I LOVE YA”!!!
Please pass some of this love on to others... suppose one morning you were called to God; do all your friends and family that they will know you love them!
And never stop making pancakes.
Do You Remember 1987.....
http://dailythoughtpad.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-you-remember-1987.html
I had forgotten all of this. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it?
Do you remember 1987.......
Trade Towers Before 9/11/2001
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't.
A couple of people laughed at the attempt.. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
9/11
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore! (Thank you Al, you are such an embarrassment to Tennessee !!)
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, 'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.
.. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
After 9/11/2001
The Morals and Question from This Story…
If we don’t teach and learn history… there is a grave consequence!
It is a tough world and we need tough leadership!
Our own government, as that of most countries, lies to us, censor and skews the news and re-writes history!
Many of the same plus new “Progressives” are in power!!
If Al Gore was this wrong in favor of Osamba Bin Laden and against an American Hero like Lt. Oliver North can you really buy into his Global Warming… ah Climate Change misinformation galvanized by the Dem’s and Obama’s Cap-and-Trade (uh… Cap-and-Tax) Bill?
The Israelis were right…
Who will be the next Mohammad Atta? Perhaps one of the released Gitmo Detainees?
If you want God to Bless America, you need America to remember God’s name!
History repeats itself, if you don’t the lessons the first time
The Obama Administration Grants Miranda Rights Rights To Detainees In Afghanistan.
by Stephen F. Hayes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp?pg=1
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it's a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today -- foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they're reading them their rights -- Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning -- so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration's approach. "If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they're likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future."
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people -- 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"
Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the
CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone."
One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America -- except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.
Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income, eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House Democrats' plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building a new bureaucracy. Heller proposed using existing state and federal databases created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.
If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.
The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., calls the proposition "too politically explosive."
But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.
"Explosive"? The applause certainly was. Obama's praise of the weakened immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from members of Congress at the S-CHIP signing event.
Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.
The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.
For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegal aliens are not getting free health care, and that even if they were, they would not be not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing non-emergency health services for illegal immigrants.
"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP. The Texas state comptroller put the price tag for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today reported that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28 percent in North Carolina alone. Clinics across the Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant care costs.
At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. "I'm just mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.
Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me
Written By Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio
"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.
It is the most-requested column I've ever written."
My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and
parents will. Stay in touch.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their
journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God
never blinks.
16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is
up to you and no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no
for an answer.
21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie.
Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.
22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain.
25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will
this matter?'
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did
or didn't do.
35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood.
38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's,we'd
grab ours back.
41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
42. The best is yet to come.
43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift."
Friends are the family that we choose for ourselves.
"The e-mail Bag
Definition of Stop…
A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriff's Deputy.
The lawyer thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he's sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputies expense.
Deputy says, "License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What for?"
Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign "
Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."
Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"
Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"
Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not, you let me go and don't give me a ticket."
Deputy says, "Sounds fair. Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the crap out of the lawyer and says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican - Report - 20090722
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for... -- Joseph Addison
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. -- Will Rogers
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"But if we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong." (1 John 1:9)
God's Word teaches that every Christian should be prepared for battles with sin. There will never be a time in this life when you will be free from temptation. Satan is a real foe, and we must be prepared for both his subtle, cunning ways and his obvious attempts to defeat and destroy us.
There is a difference, however, between temptation and sin. Temptation is the initial impression to do something contrary to God's will. Even Jesus was not immune to temptation. But temptation becomes sin when you meditate on the impression and develop an unholy desire, which is an emotional sin that may be followed by a mental or physical act of disobedience.
So, how do you avoid temptation? First, surrender yourself to the control of the Holy Spirit, trusting Him to direct and empower you. Second, and more practically speaking, you simply recognize your weakness whenever you are tempted and ask the Lord to lead you away from temptation.
"The Patriot Post"
"My anxious recollections, my sympathetic feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." -- George Washington
"When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71
"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization." -- Ronald Reagan
FOR THE RECORD
"Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- First, make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... -- Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... -- Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. -- Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... -- If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... -- Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise.." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg
LIBERTY
"Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback [last week] when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution. It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking. But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. ...[T]he Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground. .... [Hillary Clinton] accused Honduras of violating 'the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter' and said it 'should be condemned by all.' Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government. Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. ... The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and [OAS Secretary General José Miguel] Insulza expose their true colors." -- columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady
"AFA"
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
National Education Association's top lawyer touts their real purpose
Says those who promote traditional values are a group of "right-wing b****rds"
July 21, 2009
PLEASE READ AND THEN FORWARD
The National Education Association's (NEA) top lawyer, Bob Chanin, recently made clear the goal of the NEA. He called those who believe in and work for traditional family values "b****rds." He also praised the NEA because the organization has "power" and "hundreds of millions" of dollars from dues to spend in promoting their agenda and political candidates.
I have included an article which shows, in their own words, what the NEA is doing. It is time for Christians who are members of the NEA to get out. We are funding the demise of Western Civilization. Please read this article!
Chanin's volley left no doubt where the NEA wants to take the public education system, and our children. It also served as a wake-up call for those who might be considering taking their children out of public schools.
If you are a member of NEA, I suggest you contact some more teacher friends and discuss this matter with them.
If you need legal help, I suggest you contact one of the two organizations listed below:
Liberty Council www.lc.org
Alliance Defense Fund www.telladf.org
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Many members of the NEA are not aware how the NEA is using their dues to promote leftwing politics. They can drop their membership in the NEA and secure many of the same benefits by joining other professional organizations which offer the same benefits.
The Association of American Educators is one. You can visit them on the web at www.aaeteachers.org..
Also, Christian Educators offers many of the same benefits. Their website is www.ceai.org.
"The Web"
Trace Adkins and the West Point Cadet Glee Club, USMA, ACM 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0mm4u2VzDs&NR=1
Marginalizing Sarah Palin
by Bill O'Reilly
http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2009/07/18/marginalizing_sarah_palin?page=full&comments=true
About a month ago, in this space, I told you The New York Times had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The Times poll said 57 percent were willing to pay more tax and 37 percent were not willing to do so. But what the Times did not tell its readers was that 48 percent of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Only 25 percent supported John McCain. Of course the poll results would skew left.
Now we have another media deceit. The most recent edition of Newsweek magazine includes a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news -- not an opinion column -- and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that I and other Fox News people lead the dumb GOP folks.
Anyone reading the story would think that a Newsweek correspondent put it together -- the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Perlstein is not a Newsweek correspondent and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Strange.
But it gets even stranger.
Turns out that Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." He lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote: "I've just become a proud Fox (News) attacker. Now, you can, too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."
So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage.
Newsweek magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the editors are upfront about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.
With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and federal intrusion into private business, health care and the environment is unprecedented. The far left aims to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." They also see a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.
In order to accomplish this, leftwing media are marginalizing people like Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930s.
Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.
Report: Fed bailout tab is at least $4.7 trillion
TARP overseer calls Treasury Dept. a poor watchdog. Total is a third of U.S. economy.
By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/843913.html
WASHINGTON The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.
Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.
The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.
The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry equals about one third of the overall U.S. economy. It takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives – the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral, and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount will be used.
Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs, and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.
The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.
Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency-lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs, and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.
Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for fees the government charges or for the collateral many of the programs require.
“While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents ‘potential exposure' associated with them,” Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.
In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability. But, he says, the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.
Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible,” Barofsky said.
“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”
The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.
The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that received TARP money, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn't verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP funds for lending, 43 percent used the federal money to add to their capital cushion, and 31 percent made new investments.
Atheists in the Capitol's Foxhole
by Chuck Norris
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/07/21/atheists_in_the_capitols_foxhole?page=full&comments=true
I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights -- what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.
This month, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions approving the engravings of the national motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center -- a 580,000-square-foot facility under the Capitol -- where 15,500 guests visit each day.
Spearheading the measures were Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who are leaders who also have drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Forbes addressing the House on this matter -- called "Our Judeo-Christian Nation" -- has received about 2.5 million hits to date, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Also, some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can be seen on the YouTube posting called "War on God."
Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, which filed suit in an effort to prevent the engravings.
According to The Associated Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says its lawsuit is based upon the foundations that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our coins and bills, which have "In God We Trust" on them, into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!
Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the claims as ludicrous.
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Lungren said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
And Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices: "This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are 'endowed by our Creator.' If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our Founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
So, could the lawsuit prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument -- that our national motto, "In God We Trust," is unconstitutional.
That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer (202-228-1793 or emalecki@aoc.gov) and also their representatives to inform them about what they think of the engraved national motto and Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.
Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitor Center has a couple of them in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know not only that the motto and pledge are at the heart of our country but also that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.
18 Years old debating the qualifications to be President of The United States?
http://www..sodahead.com/question/370947/18-years-old-debating-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states/
Clueless in Seattle In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born ... Clueless in Seattle
In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
Yep, these are the 18 year olds that just voted for the President of the United States.
(May make you question what are being taught to our children in public schools. - oyh)
Sotomayor Would Not Concede a Right to Self-Defense
CNSNews.com
By Adam Brickley
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivers her opening statement on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing befor the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”
Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”
In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”
Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, “But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”
Sotomayor responded, “I – as I said, I don’t know.”
Later in the exchange, Coburn said, “I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion.”
“But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me,” Sotomayor relied.
William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,” he said.
Van Alstyne told CNSNews.com that the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat” if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).
However, van Alstyne also said that the court has made rulings that indicate a basic right to defend one’s life.
“Interestingly enough,” van Alstyne said, “I think you may find it, as I would, in the court’s abortion cases.”
He asserted that, “even under Roe v. Wade and all of the other decisions, once the fetus has hit the seventh or, at latest, eighth month, it is deemed quote ‘viable.’”
Continuing this line of reasoning, he stated that, “the woman may, nevertheless, get a physician’s willing help to off the fetus – the viable offspring – if it’s necessary to do so either to save her own life or merely to keep her physical health unimpaired.”
“The Roe court,” van Alstyne claimed, “and the current court, in the majority opinion has taken the position that your right to ‘protect your own life’ as a woman gives you an entitlement to kill the viable human being that you carry.”
“That’s an approximate decision,” he concluded, “that’s at least relevant in the discussion you and I are holding.”
As for his own personal opinion, van Alstyne said that, “for the most part, in my own view, the dicta of the court, the history of the treatment of self-preservation, and of constitutional reasoning and text, inevitably lead to the sensible conclusion that indeed there is a fundamental right to save your life by killing another if those are the alternatives confronting one.”
Van Alstyne also expressed the idea that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be implied by the very nature of the Constitution itself.
“If you go back to the philosophic grounds of the Constitution, a social compact, the theory is that we yield power to others, namely a democratic majority, because it’s necessary so that we don’t live according to a law of the jungle – but if government is unable to protect us from the threat of others to kill, why then we never gave to government the power to deprive us of our natural right of human self defense.”
“So,” van Alstyne concluded, “it is always implicit in the social compact that indeed, if it’s necessary to save our lives those of our family, why then we revert to that natural right, and it is protected by the Constitution.”
Judiciary Republicans Delay Vote on Sotomayor
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally delayed a final vote on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, putting off the start of a Senate floor debate until next week at the earliest.
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had hoped to hold a committee vote on Sotomayor’s nomination today, but Republicans invoked their right under the panel’s rules to a one-week delay. The vote will now take place on July 28.
“I have been advised by Sen. Sessions that the Republicans wish to put over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. They have that right to put it over, but we will come back in on Tuesday, rather than Thursday of next week. And we will do that because the U.S. Supreme Court is coming in early for a very unusual case,” Leahy said, referring to the Supreme Court’s rare September hearing of a case challenging key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) seemed resigned to the fact that Sotomayor would ultimately be confirmed to the high court, saying that he expects the floor debate to occur “without delay.”
Following the Judiciary meeting, Leahy said that while he is disappointed Republicans delayed the final committee vote, he still believes that Sotomayor’s installment on the bench is assured.
“The irony is that when we begin the [floor] debate, there won’t be a single Senator, Republican or Democrat, who doesn’t know how he or she is going to vote,” Leahy said.
At least four Republican Senators have said they would support the nomination. All Democrats are expected to vote “yes.”
40 Years Later Chappaquiddick Just Distant Memory
By Don
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/40-years-later-chappaquiddick-just-distant-memory/
Forty years ago today Sen. Ted Kennedy left a party on the island of Chappaquiddick in Martha's Vineyard with a young female passenger to catch the ferry. Instead of heading towards the ferry he somehow managed to drive his car in the wrong direction, then failed to navigate the car over a wooden bridge and wound up upside down in the water.
Kennedy who claimed that he made several unsuccessful attempts to rescue his passenger the 27-year old Mary Jo Kopechne managed to make it safely out of the water and then returned to the party to get help from two other men at the party. After failing in their attempts to help Miss Kopechne Kennedy instructed the men to return to the party and told them he would handle the situation from there. He did so by returning to his hotel room and falling asleep. The next morning at 10 am he reported the accident and it was far too late by then to save Miss Kopechne.
Despite the fact that he was responsible for the death of a young woman, the only punishment Kennedy received was the suspension of his driver's license for one year. He did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident but was given a suspended sentence. A grand jury investigation into the incident failed to yield an indictment.
Kennedy also paid the Kopechne family $90,000 in compensation and then went on his merry way winning re-election in 1970 just a little more than one year after the accident.
To this day several questions remain unanswered.
How did he not notice he was driving the wrong way on an unpaved road?
Was he drunk?
Why did he bypass several homes to get help choosing instead to go back to the party house?
Why didn't he report the accident immediately?
Could Mary Jo Kopechne have been saved?
These are just a few of the many questions that I think the public deserves an answer to.
One would think that with the mainstream media's love affair with scandals like Watergate or the Keating Five and their subsequent anniversaries that maybe they would take a similar interest in Chappaquiddick as it reached another milestone. But obviously That would be putting too much trust in the liberal media to not show its bias especially when it comes to the Kennedy's. A google search today found few if any stories in the mainstream press about this anniversary. Newsweek made a brief reference as did a few other publications, but by and large the media is sweeping this under the rug just like they have ever since it first happened.
As an aside let me say that 30 years ago I took a trip with my father, Les Kinsolving and his son to Martha's Vineyard as a member of the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Society to commemerate the anniversary of the accident. We tried to hand out flyers and were chased out of shops, we tried meeting with the local newspaper run by the Reston family and were rebuffed but we were also undaunted. On the day of the anniversary we erected a sign at the Dike bridge where the accident occurred complete with a memorial service conducted by Les Kinsolving who also threw a wreath over the bridge in memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. Needless to say the sign lasted less than a day and the crowd at the bridge was less than friendly. I learned during that trip that the Kennedy's could do no wrong and that despite the mysterious circumstances surrounding that fateful night the residents didn't really care. No public outcry means no real investigation.
It is a fair bet that we will never know what really happened that night and will be forever speculating on the events that led to the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a U.S. Senator and as time goes on it will sink deeper into the background to the point of being totally forgotten. And that is a real tragedy.
"The e-mail Bag"
WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ
(Passing requires 4 correct answers) NO PEEKING
1) How long did the Hundred Years' War last?
2) Which country makes Panama hats?
3) From which animal do we get cat gut?
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?
7) What was King George VI's first name?
8) What color is a purple finch?
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?
Remember, you need 4 correct answers to pass.
Check your answers below.
ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years
2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador
3) From which animal do we get catgut? Sheep and Horses
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution? November
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal? Dogs
7) What was King George VI's first name? Albert
8) What color is a purple finch? Crimson
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from? New Zealand
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? Orange (of course)
"Daily Motivations"
Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for... -- Joseph Addison
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. -- Will Rogers
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"But if we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong." (1 John 1:9)
God's Word teaches that every Christian should be prepared for battles with sin. There will never be a time in this life when you will be free from temptation. Satan is a real foe, and we must be prepared for both his subtle, cunning ways and his obvious attempts to defeat and destroy us.
There is a difference, however, between temptation and sin. Temptation is the initial impression to do something contrary to God's will. Even Jesus was not immune to temptation. But temptation becomes sin when you meditate on the impression and develop an unholy desire, which is an emotional sin that may be followed by a mental or physical act of disobedience.
So, how do you avoid temptation? First, surrender yourself to the control of the Holy Spirit, trusting Him to direct and empower you. Second, and more practically speaking, you simply recognize your weakness whenever you are tempted and ask the Lord to lead you away from temptation.
"The Patriot Post"
"My anxious recollections, my sympathetic feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." -- George Washington
"When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71
"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization." -- Ronald Reagan
FOR THE RECORD
"Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- First, make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... -- Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... -- Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. -- Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... -- If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... -- Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise.." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg
LIBERTY
"Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback [last week] when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution. It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking. But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. ...[T]he Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground. .... [Hillary Clinton] accused Honduras of violating 'the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter' and said it 'should be condemned by all.' Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government. Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. ... The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and [OAS Secretary General José Miguel] Insulza expose their true colors." -- columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady
"AFA"
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
National Education Association's top lawyer touts their real purpose
Says those who promote traditional values are a group of "right-wing b****rds"
July 21, 2009
PLEASE READ AND THEN FORWARD
The National Education Association's (NEA) top lawyer, Bob Chanin, recently made clear the goal of the NEA. He called those who believe in and work for traditional family values "b****rds." He also praised the NEA because the organization has "power" and "hundreds of millions" of dollars from dues to spend in promoting their agenda and political candidates.
I have included an article which shows, in their own words, what the NEA is doing. It is time for Christians who are members of the NEA to get out. We are funding the demise of Western Civilization. Please read this article!
Chanin's volley left no doubt where the NEA wants to take the public education system, and our children. It also served as a wake-up call for those who might be considering taking their children out of public schools.
If you are a member of NEA, I suggest you contact some more teacher friends and discuss this matter with them.
If you need legal help, I suggest you contact one of the two organizations listed below:
Liberty Council www.lc.org
Alliance Defense Fund www.telladf.org
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Many members of the NEA are not aware how the NEA is using their dues to promote leftwing politics. They can drop their membership in the NEA and secure many of the same benefits by joining other professional organizations which offer the same benefits.
The Association of American Educators is one. You can visit them on the web at www.aaeteachers.org..
Also, Christian Educators offers many of the same benefits. Their website is www.ceai.org.
"The Web"
Trace Adkins and the West Point Cadet Glee Club, USMA, ACM 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0mm4u2VzDs&NR=1
Marginalizing Sarah Palin
by Bill O'Reilly
http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2009/07/18/marginalizing_sarah_palin?page=full&comments=true
About a month ago, in this space, I told you The New York Times had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The Times poll said 57 percent were willing to pay more tax and 37 percent were not willing to do so. But what the Times did not tell its readers was that 48 percent of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Only 25 percent supported John McCain. Of course the poll results would skew left.
Now we have another media deceit. The most recent edition of Newsweek magazine includes a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news -- not an opinion column -- and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that I and other Fox News people lead the dumb GOP folks.
Anyone reading the story would think that a Newsweek correspondent put it together -- the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Perlstein is not a Newsweek correspondent and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Strange.
But it gets even stranger.
Turns out that Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." He lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote: "I've just become a proud Fox (News) attacker. Now, you can, too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."
So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage.
Newsweek magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the editors are upfront about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.
With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and federal intrusion into private business, health care and the environment is unprecedented. The far left aims to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." They also see a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.
In order to accomplish this, leftwing media are marginalizing people like Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930s.
Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.
Report: Fed bailout tab is at least $4.7 trillion
TARP overseer calls Treasury Dept. a poor watchdog. Total is a third of U.S. economy.
By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/843913.html
WASHINGTON The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.
Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.
The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.
The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry equals about one third of the overall U.S. economy. It takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives – the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral, and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount will be used.
Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs, and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.
The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.
Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency-lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs, and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.
Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for fees the government charges or for the collateral many of the programs require.
“While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents ‘potential exposure' associated with them,” Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.
In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability. But, he says, the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.
Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible,” Barofsky said.
“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”
The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.
The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that received TARP money, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn't verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP funds for lending, 43 percent used the federal money to add to their capital cushion, and 31 percent made new investments.
Atheists in the Capitol's Foxhole
by Chuck Norris
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/07/21/atheists_in_the_capitols_foxhole?page=full&comments=true
I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights -- what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.
This month, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions approving the engravings of the national motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center -- a 580,000-square-foot facility under the Capitol -- where 15,500 guests visit each day.
Spearheading the measures were Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who are leaders who also have drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Forbes addressing the House on this matter -- called "Our Judeo-Christian Nation" -- has received about 2.5 million hits to date, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Also, some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can be seen on the YouTube posting called "War on God."
Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, which filed suit in an effort to prevent the engravings.
According to The Associated Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says its lawsuit is based upon the foundations that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our coins and bills, which have "In God We Trust" on them, into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!
Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the claims as ludicrous.
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Lungren said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
And Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices: "This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are 'endowed by our Creator.' If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our Founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
So, could the lawsuit prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument -- that our national motto, "In God We Trust," is unconstitutional.
That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer (202-228-1793 or emalecki@aoc.gov) and also their representatives to inform them about what they think of the engraved national motto and Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.
Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitor Center has a couple of them in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know not only that the motto and pledge are at the heart of our country but also that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.
18 Years old debating the qualifications to be President of The United States?
http://www..sodahead.com/question/370947/18-years-old-debating-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states/
Clueless in Seattle In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born ... Clueless in Seattle
In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
Yep, these are the 18 year olds that just voted for the President of the United States.
(May make you question what are being taught to our children in public schools. - oyh)
Sotomayor Would Not Concede a Right to Self-Defense
CNSNews.com
By Adam Brickley
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivers her opening statement on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing befor the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”
Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”
In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”
Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, “But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”
Sotomayor responded, “I – as I said, I don’t know.”
Later in the exchange, Coburn said, “I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion.”
“But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me,” Sotomayor relied.
William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,” he said.
Van Alstyne told CNSNews.com that the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat” if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).
However, van Alstyne also said that the court has made rulings that indicate a basic right to defend one’s life.
“Interestingly enough,” van Alstyne said, “I think you may find it, as I would, in the court’s abortion cases.”
He asserted that, “even under Roe v. Wade and all of the other decisions, once the fetus has hit the seventh or, at latest, eighth month, it is deemed quote ‘viable.’”
Continuing this line of reasoning, he stated that, “the woman may, nevertheless, get a physician’s willing help to off the fetus – the viable offspring – if it’s necessary to do so either to save her own life or merely to keep her physical health unimpaired.”
“The Roe court,” van Alstyne claimed, “and the current court, in the majority opinion has taken the position that your right to ‘protect your own life’ as a woman gives you an entitlement to kill the viable human being that you carry.”
“That’s an approximate decision,” he concluded, “that’s at least relevant in the discussion you and I are holding.”
As for his own personal opinion, van Alstyne said that, “for the most part, in my own view, the dicta of the court, the history of the treatment of self-preservation, and of constitutional reasoning and text, inevitably lead to the sensible conclusion that indeed there is a fundamental right to save your life by killing another if those are the alternatives confronting one.”
Van Alstyne also expressed the idea that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be implied by the very nature of the Constitution itself.
“If you go back to the philosophic grounds of the Constitution, a social compact, the theory is that we yield power to others, namely a democratic majority, because it’s necessary so that we don’t live according to a law of the jungle – but if government is unable to protect us from the threat of others to kill, why then we never gave to government the power to deprive us of our natural right of human self defense.”
“So,” van Alstyne concluded, “it is always implicit in the social compact that indeed, if it’s necessary to save our lives those of our family, why then we revert to that natural right, and it is protected by the Constitution.”
Judiciary Republicans Delay Vote on Sotomayor
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally delayed a final vote on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, putting off the start of a Senate floor debate until next week at the earliest.
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had hoped to hold a committee vote on Sotomayor’s nomination today, but Republicans invoked their right under the panel’s rules to a one-week delay. The vote will now take place on July 28.
“I have been advised by Sen. Sessions that the Republicans wish to put over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. They have that right to put it over, but we will come back in on Tuesday, rather than Thursday of next week. And we will do that because the U.S. Supreme Court is coming in early for a very unusual case,” Leahy said, referring to the Supreme Court’s rare September hearing of a case challenging key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) seemed resigned to the fact that Sotomayor would ultimately be confirmed to the high court, saying that he expects the floor debate to occur “without delay.”
Following the Judiciary meeting, Leahy said that while he is disappointed Republicans delayed the final committee vote, he still believes that Sotomayor’s installment on the bench is assured.
“The irony is that when we begin the [floor] debate, there won’t be a single Senator, Republican or Democrat, who doesn’t know how he or she is going to vote,” Leahy said.
At least four Republican Senators have said they would support the nomination. All Democrats are expected to vote “yes.”
40 Years Later Chappaquiddick Just Distant Memory
By Don
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/40-years-later-chappaquiddick-just-distant-memory/
Forty years ago today Sen. Ted Kennedy left a party on the island of Chappaquiddick in Martha's Vineyard with a young female passenger to catch the ferry. Instead of heading towards the ferry he somehow managed to drive his car in the wrong direction, then failed to navigate the car over a wooden bridge and wound up upside down in the water.
Kennedy who claimed that he made several unsuccessful attempts to rescue his passenger the 27-year old Mary Jo Kopechne managed to make it safely out of the water and then returned to the party to get help from two other men at the party. After failing in their attempts to help Miss Kopechne Kennedy instructed the men to return to the party and told them he would handle the situation from there. He did so by returning to his hotel room and falling asleep. The next morning at 10 am he reported the accident and it was far too late by then to save Miss Kopechne.
Despite the fact that he was responsible for the death of a young woman, the only punishment Kennedy received was the suspension of his driver's license for one year. He did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident but was given a suspended sentence. A grand jury investigation into the incident failed to yield an indictment.
Kennedy also paid the Kopechne family $90,000 in compensation and then went on his merry way winning re-election in 1970 just a little more than one year after the accident.
To this day several questions remain unanswered.
How did he not notice he was driving the wrong way on an unpaved road?
Was he drunk?
Why did he bypass several homes to get help choosing instead to go back to the party house?
Why didn't he report the accident immediately?
Could Mary Jo Kopechne have been saved?
These are just a few of the many questions that I think the public deserves an answer to.
One would think that with the mainstream media's love affair with scandals like Watergate or the Keating Five and their subsequent anniversaries that maybe they would take a similar interest in Chappaquiddick as it reached another milestone. But obviously That would be putting too much trust in the liberal media to not show its bias especially when it comes to the Kennedy's. A google search today found few if any stories in the mainstream press about this anniversary. Newsweek made a brief reference as did a few other publications, but by and large the media is sweeping this under the rug just like they have ever since it first happened.
As an aside let me say that 30 years ago I took a trip with my father, Les Kinsolving and his son to Martha's Vineyard as a member of the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Society to commemerate the anniversary of the accident. We tried to hand out flyers and were chased out of shops, we tried meeting with the local newspaper run by the Reston family and were rebuffed but we were also undaunted. On the day of the anniversary we erected a sign at the Dike bridge where the accident occurred complete with a memorial service conducted by Les Kinsolving who also threw a wreath over the bridge in memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. Needless to say the sign lasted less than a day and the crowd at the bridge was less than friendly. I learned during that trip that the Kennedy's could do no wrong and that despite the mysterious circumstances surrounding that fateful night the residents didn't really care. No public outcry means no real investigation.
It is a fair bet that we will never know what really happened that night and will be forever speculating on the events that led to the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a U.S. Senator and as time goes on it will sink deeper into the background to the point of being totally forgotten. And that is a real tragedy.
"The e-mail Bag"
WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ
(Passing requires 4 correct answers) NO PEEKING
1) How long did the Hundred Years' War last?
2) Which country makes Panama hats?
3) From which animal do we get cat gut?
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?
7) What was King George VI's first name?
8) What color is a purple finch?
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?
Remember, you need 4 correct answers to pass.
Check your answers below.
ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years
2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador
3) From which animal do we get catgut? Sheep and Horses
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution? November
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal? Dogs
7) What was King George VI's first name? Albert
8) What color is a purple finch? Crimson
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from? New Zealand
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? Orange (of course)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090721
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
"Daily Motivations"
The most important things in life aren't things. -- Anthony D'Angelo
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life has gone; a new life has begun!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)
A businessman was selling a warehouse property that had been empty for months. Vandals had smashed the windows, damaged the doors, and strewn trash around the inside. As he showed the property to a prospective buyer, he explained that he would replace the broken windows, correct any structural damage, and clean out the garbage.
"Forget about the repairs," the buyer said. "When I buy this place, I'm going to build something completely different. I don't want the building; I want the site."
It is the same with our loving Father. God is not simply sweeping a warehouse slated for the wrecking ball. He is building something completely new. All He wants is the site and the permission to build.
When you became a Christian, you became a new person. The core of who you are is no longer the same. All your sins---past, present, and future---are forgiven, and Christ has clothed you in His righteousness.
Jesus exchanged our rags for His righteousness---and we will be clothed in His righteous garments for all eternity. Our old nature no longer has power over us because we have a completely new identity.
"The Patriot Post"
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." -- Leviticus 25:10 Inscription on the Liberty Bell
"NRA"
Joint Statement On Judge Sotomayor's Nomination To The U.S. Supreme Court
By NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5060
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on 19th century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend our loved ones and ourselves is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
"The Web"
A lot of church members who are singing 'Standing on the Promises' are just sitting on the premises.
We were called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges.
Elvis Presley: A Tribute to our Flag
http://home.comcast.net/~nw-fla/tribute_flag_B_thompson.htm
Obama Care in 60 seconds or less
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_care_in_60_seconds_or_le.html
Update from Oklahoma!
http://www.examiner.com/x-3678-Baltimore-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d5-Update-from-Oklahoma
I received this from a friend in Oklahoma, I added the laws after I confirmed them all, Maybe I'll move to Oklahoma!
The state law passed today, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! Guess what..........We did it anyway. HB 1330
We recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from, unless they want to get a green card and/or become an American citizen. They all scattered. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what..........we did it anyway. HB 1804
Yesterday we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. Guess what........We did it anyway. SB 1102
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. That, for your information, makes Oklahoma and Texas the only states to do so. Guess what.........More states are likely to follow. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, just to name a few. Should Mississippi act, so will Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the Kennedys and Ms Pelosi.
Guess what..........We did it anyway. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 3-0
By the way, Obama does not like any of this.
Guess what....who cares...were doing it anyway.
Justice Isn’t Blind for the President or His Supreme Court Nominee
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/Justice-Isnt-Blind-for-the-President-or-His-Supreme-Court-Nominee.htm
The Memorial Day weekend was barely over when President Barack Obama announced his choice of who would get his Supreme Court nomination. While most Americans were just beginning their holiday-shortened work week, we learned that the “empathetic” nominee the President had been looking for was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
What we didn’t hear, however, was that both the President and his nominee believe more in the rule of a judge’s personal “experiences” and “perspectives” than in the rule of law.
Sure, that wasn’t what either explicitly stated in their remarks delivered from the White House on Tuesday morning. But that was what was perfectly clear if you listened carefully to what both meant, not to mention what both had said in the past.
To be fair, what Americans did hear if they tuned in to the carefully choreographed and scripted nomination announcement was that President Obama believes a Supreme Court justice must “[f]irst and foremost” possess “a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key legal issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions,” and “[s]econd” recognize “the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law.”
Okay, that’s the typical boilerplate language — the perfectly obvious and universally accepted prerequisites to being confirmed to the singular Court that has the final word on what is, and what isn’t, “the supreme Law of the Land.”
But the President didn’t limit himself to that pair of requirements. According to President Obama, “We need something more” from our next Supreme Court justice because “th[o]se qualities alone are insufficient.”
Then it came, the President’s subtle acknowledgement that — in spite of his just stated and publicly acceptable criteria — “a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court” is “experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.” Or, in words President Obama had previously used to describe what he would look for in a justice, “the critical ingredient” of a fair jurist “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
Think about that for a moment. The President of the United States — the man whose constitutional duty and solemn oath is to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — believes that “the critical ingredient” necessary in a Supreme Court justice is not to faithfully interpret and apply the laws and Constitution of the United States as written and enacted, but rather “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
That’s why the rest of the President’s introduction of his Supreme Court nominee focused not on Judge Sotomayor’s legal acumen or her judicial restraint, but instead on her “breadth of perspective that will be invaluable” because, according to the President, she has “a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.”
This was President Obama’s publicly acceptable way of saying now what he had argued more forcefully in the past — that a justice should make her rulings “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In other words, a judge should “bring in … her own perspectives, … her own ethics, … her own moral bearings” in deciding cases — even when none of those have any relation to, and may even conflict with the law actually enacted by the political branches elected by “We the People.”
This is why the President thought it relevant to observe that Judge Sotomayor “will bring to the Court … not only the knowledge and experience acquired over [the] course of a brilliant legal career, but [also] the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.”
Like the President, Judge Sotomayor used subtle, publicly acceptable language at the ceremony to hint at her willingness to apply her personal preferences from the bench.
Specifically, Judge Sotomayor explained that she always “strive[d] never to forget the real-world consequences of [her] decisions” – that was the nice and disguised way acknowledging that she allows her personal sympathies to play a role in her judicial decision-making process. In other words, for Judge Sotomayor, justice isn’t blind.
In past statements, Judge Sotomayor has been far more blunt. In fact, a little less than two weeks before President Obama nominated her, Judge Sotomayor was the subject of a New York Times story that strung together a number of the Judge’s previous speeches and statements that demonstrate just how activist she believes a jurist is entitled to be.
The statement that has gotten the most attention is her comment at a Duke Law School panel discussion for students interested in becoming federal law clerks, where, in touting the advantages of an appeals (rather than a trial court clerkship), Judge Sotomayor explained her belief that “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
But even more frightening than Judge Sotomayor’s belief that it is entirely proper for unelected judges — rather than the American people’s elected representatives — to make policy is her belief that judges who make policy can do so on the basis of their own personal moral, political and policy preferences.
Indeed, as noted in that New York Times story — no bastion of conservative sentiment – “Judge Sotomayor [has] questioned whether achieving [judicial] impartiality ‘is possible at all, or even, in most, cases.” And, in that speech, Judge Sotomayor went on to add, “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
Those comments came in a revealing speech Judge Sotomayor gave at the University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law in 2001, and the excerpts quoted in the New York Times piece were just the tip of the iceberg.
Later in the lecture, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” As a result, Judge Sotomayor agreed with one of her former law school classmates, Harvard Law School Professor Martha Minnow, quoting her belief that “there is no objective [judicial] stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.”
As a result, Judge Sotomayor not only stated her belief that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” going on to make the even more incendiary remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Indeed, if it wasn’t clear from those comments, Judge Sotomayor went on to explicitly state her belief that it is entirely appropriate for her to impose her own personal moral, political and policy preference through her seat on the federal bench, explaining, “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt … continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
All of this is, of course, more than troubling for a country that was founded on the principle of the rule of law and not of men.
As former U.S. Solicitor General and federal appeals court Judge Kenneth Starr told Fox News: “It’s not [a judge’s] job at all to make policy. It rather is for the Congress [or for the President] or for the governor or the legislature to make policy, and for [a judge] to interpret the law as given to [her].”
But that’s only if you truly and deeply believe that, under the rule of law, justice is and should be blind. The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Court has made it clear that neither President Obama, nor the nominee he chose, believe that to be true. Instead, they believe justice isn’t blind and so America’s rule of law must yield to the rule of men, and in this case, women. That should trouble all Americans.
Confessions of a gov junketeer
By Jeanette Colville
This week's dust-up over a mere $700,000 federal employees "group-hug" at the ritzy Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix made me chuckle. Ah, the memories that story brought back from my twenty-five years as an authentic, although sometimes reluctant, gov junketeer.
Oh yes, ask any retired federal government employee and they'll tell you that the "motivational" management conference has always been the norm, rather than the exception, regardless of the dark winds of ObamaNomics. ABC Reporter Josh Bernstein provides an update on the Phoenix gov junketeers who had the misfortune to be observed by the media.
What a naïve young woman I was when I raised my hand in front of the American flag and took the oath of a government civil service employee. Silly me, I had the naïve impression that civil service meant that I would be serving American citizens -- our agency's customers. My mindset was: What can I do to serve the public? Watching those around me, it didn't take long to catch on that the mindset among the more experienced government employees was a little different; it went like this: What can the government do to serve me?
For a civil service novice, this mindset becomes all too visible in the unfolding of the endless stream of agency "conferences," both regional and national, orchestrated under the themes of motivational enhancement, stress management, time management, total quality management, and team building -- you name it, the government sponsored it, and you, the taxpayer, paid for it.
Gov junketeers were offered a wide range of "conference" settings -- the Colorado Rockies, the Arizona desert, the ski slopes of Utah, Alaska snowscapes, the beaches of Hawaii, and the big city nightlife in D.C. and New Orleans. My last all-expense-paid weeklong group hug was at the lavish Phoenix Camelback Inn - perfect for golf lovers
For those Alaska gov junketeers feeling a touch of the long dark winter blues, we hosted an employee management team conference in sunny Hawaii at the beachfront Kona Village Resort. Hula dancing and luau all part of the team building.
For fans of urban shopping and river walking, we gathered at the Portland Marriott Residence Inn. Fine dining and motivational bonding in a trendy setting.
Do you like to ski? Where else than Park City, Utah for a grand interagency gathering to watch ethnic dancers and feast at a motivational banquet. Accommodations included cozy suites with working fireplaces.
A true gov junketeer learns how to take advantage of much more than just the all expense paid fine dining, luxury accommodations, airfare, and cash reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses. If one watches veteran gov junketeers closely, one learns the fine art of advanced vacation junketeering.
While attending a week-long government employee "retirement training" conference at a resort in Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, I noticed that a coworker attended the first session on the first day, and then disappeared for the rest of the week, reappearing on the morning of the final day. Where had he been? Hiking in the mountains, he said, laughing.
When attending a gov junketeer conference in Albuquerque, a coworker attending the first morning of the first day of the week-long conference disappeared for the next four days, arriving back just in time for the closing session. Where had he been? Bird watching all over New Mexico, he said, thanks to having access to a government-paid rental car and gas card.
Other popular gov junketeer motivational conference sites I attended included the luxury Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage overlooking the Cook Inlet. Motivational activities included trips to view glaciers and watch Sockeye salmon runs.
Tired of mountains and deserts? How about a gov junket to the rugged Oregon Coast? The Shalishan Resort is a popular "retreat" for serious team building, in between golf, tennis, and treatments at the spa.
Skilled gov junketeers learn the ropes quickly and never head to the airport without a handful of official government forms giving them tax-free status on all charges and on personal travel allowance reimbursements.
I estimate the cumulative costs to the hard working American taxpayer for my gov junkets over twenty-five years of civil service employment at a minimum of $35,000 -- and for that investment, whether I was in D.C., Denver, Anchorage, Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Reno, I learned how to stretch my arms behind my back (a motivational training exercise), why America is an evil place because of the income gap (motivational banquet keynote speaker at Ft. Collins, Colorado), and how to play a game with five other people called: Stranded on a Desert Island (a motivational team building exercise).
I was but one tiny cog in but one federal agency. If you think AIG spent a lot of money on entertaining its executives in style, they were pikers compared to Uncle Sam.
Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First U.S. Conference
Diane Macedo
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html
YouTube
The Khilafah Conference 2009 is scheduled to be held July 19, 2009 at the Hilton Oak Lawn hotel.
A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda in Iraq's onetime leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It has operated discreetly in the U.S. for decades.
Now, it is coming out of the shadows and openly hosting a July 19 conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," at a posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.
Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it does not engage in terrorism, and it is not recognized by the State Department as a known terror group.
But some terrorism experts say it may be even more dangerous than many groups that are on the terror list.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism," Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com.
Phares said that Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than training members to carry out terrorist acts like Al Qaeda, focuses instead on indoctrinating youths between ages of 9 and 18 to absorb the ideology that calls for the formation of an empire — or "khilafah" — that will rule according to Islamic law and condones any means to achieve it, including militant jihad.
Hizb ut-Tahrir often says that its indoctrination "prepares the infantry" that groups like Al Qaeda take into battle, Phares said.
"It's like a middle school that prepares them to be recruited by the high school, which is Al Qaeda," he said. "One would compare them to Hitler youth. ... It's an extremely dangerous organization."
Phares said Hizb ut-Tahrir has strongholds in Western countries, including Britain, France and Spain, and clearly is looking to strengthen its base in the U.S.
"The aim of this conference is to recruit within the Muslim community in America," he said. "The Middle East governments go after them, but in the U.S. they are protected, so having a base here is going to help their cells around the world."
Representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir declined to comment when contacted by FOXNews.com.
Oren Segal, director of Islamic Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, said the conference is cause for concern.
"While they're not, for the most part, engaging in violent activities, and they publicly say that they're against violence, there have been examples around the world where people who have spun off of this group have engaged in violent activity," Segal told FOXNews.com. "That's why they're banned in several Arab and Central Asian countries, as well as Germany and Russia."
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of the group's most famous alumni, New Statesman journalist Shiv Malik reported, citing intelligence sources. In addition to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he also is implicated in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the Bali nightclub bombings and the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
Malik's report, the public policy institute the Nixon Center and the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation agree that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until he was killed in June 2006, was also once a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
They say other former members include Asif Muhammad Hanif, a British man who blew himself up outside a bar in Tel Aviv, killing four people (including himself) and wounding more than 50; and Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical cleric currently banned from Britain who praised the 9/11 attacks, raised funds for Hezbollah and Hamas and called for attacks on the Dublin airport because U.S. troops transferred there on their way to Iraq.
Segal said Hizb ut-Tahrir is becoming more active online in the U.S. — particularly on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace — and now it may be able to add a significant number of Americans to its ranks.
But one place the group will likely not be recruiting is a local Islamic school that backed out of hosting the conference.
The non-profit Aqsa school in Bridgeview said Hizb ut-Tahrir had deceptively portrayed the conference as a bazaar-type event where traditional food and clothing would be sold.
"They misrepresented themselves and the event. We don't want to be in the middle of something like that," the school's business manager Rana Jaber, told CBS News.
The conference's new venue doesn't seem to mind.
Hilton Oak Lawn General Manager Rick Harmon said Hizb ut-Tahrir used its own name and was open about the nature of the event, which includes lectures entitled "Capitalism is Doomed to Fail," "The Global Rise of Islam," and the "Role of Muslims in America," when it reserved the room for the conference.
"We're United States citizens and an American business — if it's legal, we're able to host it, as long as it's nothing that disrupts our other guests' privacy and security," Harmon told FOXNews.com.
According to the Khilafah Conference 2009 Web site, the group aims to do neither.
"Hizb-ut-Tahrir is convinced that change must start in the minds of people, and therefore does not accept for people, or societies, to be forced to change by means of violence and terror," it reads.
The site, which includes a promotional YouTube video, says the group "does not work in the West to change the system of government, but works to project a positive image of Islam to Western society."
Click here to see the conference video.
But former member Ishtiaq Hussain said Hizb ut-Tahrir is repackaging itself as a moderate organization as a tactic, while in reality it is "extremist."
"They don't recognize countries like Israel, for example; they don’t believe Israel should exist," Hussain, now a trainer for the Quilliam Foundation, told FOXNews.com. "Some of their leaders have denied the Holocaust, and they believe homosexuals should be thrown off the highest building. ... It's actually a very dangerous group."
Hizb ut-Tahrir itself has also published writings that seem to contradict its tenet of non-violence.
In his book, "How the Khilafah Was Destroyed," Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, the former global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, says anyone who rules by a non-Islamic system should "either retract or be killed ... even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers."
Click here to read the full excerpt.
Hizb ut-Tahrir's official ruling on the permissibility of hijacking planes says, "If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it."
Click here to read the full ruling (pdf).
And one of the organization's more recent leaflets, published in March, calls for the declaration of "a state of war against America."
Click here to read the leaflet.
But, despite these threats and calls to action, Hizb ut-Tahrir remains off the State Department's terror watch list, and it is free to host the Khilafah Conference and any other event like it.
"In other parts of the world where they're really very active, they've drawn tens of thousands of people to some of their events," Segal said.
"It'll be interesting to see to what degree they'll be welcomed here."
These contractors are installing the steel pillars in concrete to stop vehicles from parking...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7372208
...on the pavement outside a Sports Bar downtown. They are now in the process of cleaning up at the end of the day and anxious to go home. How long do you think it will be before they realize where *their* vehicle is parked?
LIFE IN THE 1500'S
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the1500s:
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying. It's raining cats and dogs.
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, dirt poor. The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, bring home the bacon. They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all
sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave.. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a ....dead ringer.
And that's the truth. Now, whoever said history was boring?
Educate someone. Share these facts with a friend.
"The e-mail Bag"
TO ALL MY AMAZING FRIENDS!!!!
I would never trade my amazing friends, my wonderful life, my loving family for less gray hair or a flatter belly. As I've aged, I've become kinder to myself, and less critical of myself. I've become my own friend. I don't chide myself for eating that extra cookie, or for not making my bed, or for buying that silly cement ornament that I didn't need, but looks so avante garde on my patio. I am entitled to a treat, to be messy, to be extravagant.
I have seen too many dear friends leave this world too soon, before they understood the great freedom that comes with aging. Whose business is it if I choose to read or play on the computer until 4 AM and sleep until noon? I will dance with myself to those wonderful tunes of the 60's &70's, and if I, at the same time, wish to weep over a lost love ... I will.
I will walk the beach in a swim suit that is stretched over a bulging body, and will dive into the waves with abandon if I choose to, despite the pitying glances from the jet set. They, too, will get old.
I know I am sometimes forgetful. But there again, some of life is just as well forgotten. And I eventually remember the important things.
Sure, over the years my heart has been broken. How can your heart not break when you lose a loved one, or when a child suffers, or even when somebody's beloved pet gets hit by a car? But broken hearts are what give us strength and understanding and compassion. A heart never broken is pristine and sterile and will never know the joy of being imperfect.
I am so blessed to have lived long enough to have my hair turning gray, and to have my youthful laughs be forever etched into deep grooves on my face. So many have never laughed, and so many have died before their hair could turn silver.
As you get older, it is easier to be positive. You care less about what other people think. I don't question myself anymore. I've even earned the right to be wrong.
So, to answer your question, I like being older. It has set me free. I like the person I have become I am not going to live forever, but while I am still here, I will not waste time lamenting what could have been, or worrying about what will be. And I shall eat dessert every single day (if I feel like it).
MAY OUR FRIENDSHIP NEVER COME APART, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART!
"Daily Motivations"
The most important things in life aren't things. -- Anthony D'Angelo
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
"Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life has gone; a new life has begun!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)
A businessman was selling a warehouse property that had been empty for months. Vandals had smashed the windows, damaged the doors, and strewn trash around the inside. As he showed the property to a prospective buyer, he explained that he would replace the broken windows, correct any structural damage, and clean out the garbage.
"Forget about the repairs," the buyer said. "When I buy this place, I'm going to build something completely different. I don't want the building; I want the site."
It is the same with our loving Father. God is not simply sweeping a warehouse slated for the wrecking ball. He is building something completely new. All He wants is the site and the permission to build.
When you became a Christian, you became a new person. The core of who you are is no longer the same. All your sins---past, present, and future---are forgiven, and Christ has clothed you in His righteousness.
Jesus exchanged our rags for His righteousness---and we will be clothed in His righteous garments for all eternity. Our old nature no longer has power over us because we have a completely new identity.
"The Patriot Post"
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." -- Leviticus 25:10 Inscription on the Liberty Bell
"NRA"
Joint Statement On Judge Sotomayor's Nomination To The U.S. Supreme Court
By NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5060
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on 19th century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend our loved ones and ourselves is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
"The Web"
A lot of church members who are singing 'Standing on the Promises' are just sitting on the premises.
We were called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges.
Elvis Presley: A Tribute to our Flag
http://home.comcast.net/~nw-fla/tribute_flag_B_thompson.htm
Obama Care in 60 seconds or less
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_care_in_60_seconds_or_le.html
Update from Oklahoma!
http://www.examiner.com/x-3678-Baltimore-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d5-Update-from-Oklahoma
I received this from a friend in Oklahoma, I added the laws after I confirmed them all, Maybe I'll move to Oklahoma!
The state law passed today, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! Guess what..........We did it anyway. HB 1330
We recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from, unless they want to get a green card and/or become an American citizen. They all scattered. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what..........we did it anyway. HB 1804
Yesterday we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. Guess what........We did it anyway. SB 1102
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. That, for your information, makes Oklahoma and Texas the only states to do so. Guess what.........More states are likely to follow. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, just to name a few. Should Mississippi act, so will Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the Kennedys and Ms Pelosi.
Guess what..........We did it anyway. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 3-0
By the way, Obama does not like any of this.
Guess what....who cares...were doing it anyway.
Justice Isn’t Blind for the President or His Supreme Court Nominee
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/Justice-Isnt-Blind-for-the-President-or-His-Supreme-Court-Nominee.htm
The Memorial Day weekend was barely over when President Barack Obama announced his choice of who would get his Supreme Court nomination. While most Americans were just beginning their holiday-shortened work week, we learned that the “empathetic” nominee the President had been looking for was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
What we didn’t hear, however, was that both the President and his nominee believe more in the rule of a judge’s personal “experiences” and “perspectives” than in the rule of law.
Sure, that wasn’t what either explicitly stated in their remarks delivered from the White House on Tuesday morning. But that was what was perfectly clear if you listened carefully to what both meant, not to mention what both had said in the past.
To be fair, what Americans did hear if they tuned in to the carefully choreographed and scripted nomination announcement was that President Obama believes a Supreme Court justice must “[f]irst and foremost” possess “a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key legal issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions,” and “[s]econd” recognize “the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law.”
Okay, that’s the typical boilerplate language — the perfectly obvious and universally accepted prerequisites to being confirmed to the singular Court that has the final word on what is, and what isn’t, “the supreme Law of the Land.”
But the President didn’t limit himself to that pair of requirements. According to President Obama, “We need something more” from our next Supreme Court justice because “th[o]se qualities alone are insufficient.”
Then it came, the President’s subtle acknowledgement that — in spite of his just stated and publicly acceptable criteria — “a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court” is “experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.” Or, in words President Obama had previously used to describe what he would look for in a justice, “the critical ingredient” of a fair jurist “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
Think about that for a moment. The President of the United States — the man whose constitutional duty and solemn oath is to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — believes that “the critical ingredient” necessary in a Supreme Court justice is not to faithfully interpret and apply the laws and Constitution of the United States as written and enacted, but rather “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
That’s why the rest of the President’s introduction of his Supreme Court nominee focused not on Judge Sotomayor’s legal acumen or her judicial restraint, but instead on her “breadth of perspective that will be invaluable” because, according to the President, she has “a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.”
This was President Obama’s publicly acceptable way of saying now what he had argued more forcefully in the past — that a justice should make her rulings “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In other words, a judge should “bring in … her own perspectives, … her own ethics, … her own moral bearings” in deciding cases — even when none of those have any relation to, and may even conflict with the law actually enacted by the political branches elected by “We the People.”
This is why the President thought it relevant to observe that Judge Sotomayor “will bring to the Court … not only the knowledge and experience acquired over [the] course of a brilliant legal career, but [also] the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.”
Like the President, Judge Sotomayor used subtle, publicly acceptable language at the ceremony to hint at her willingness to apply her personal preferences from the bench.
Specifically, Judge Sotomayor explained that she always “strive[d] never to forget the real-world consequences of [her] decisions” – that was the nice and disguised way acknowledging that she allows her personal sympathies to play a role in her judicial decision-making process. In other words, for Judge Sotomayor, justice isn’t blind.
In past statements, Judge Sotomayor has been far more blunt. In fact, a little less than two weeks before President Obama nominated her, Judge Sotomayor was the subject of a New York Times story that strung together a number of the Judge’s previous speeches and statements that demonstrate just how activist she believes a jurist is entitled to be.
The statement that has gotten the most attention is her comment at a Duke Law School panel discussion for students interested in becoming federal law clerks, where, in touting the advantages of an appeals (rather than a trial court clerkship), Judge Sotomayor explained her belief that “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
But even more frightening than Judge Sotomayor’s belief that it is entirely proper for unelected judges — rather than the American people’s elected representatives — to make policy is her belief that judges who make policy can do so on the basis of their own personal moral, political and policy preferences.
Indeed, as noted in that New York Times story — no bastion of conservative sentiment – “Judge Sotomayor [has] questioned whether achieving [judicial] impartiality ‘is possible at all, or even, in most, cases.” And, in that speech, Judge Sotomayor went on to add, “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
Those comments came in a revealing speech Judge Sotomayor gave at the University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law in 2001, and the excerpts quoted in the New York Times piece were just the tip of the iceberg.
Later in the lecture, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” As a result, Judge Sotomayor agreed with one of her former law school classmates, Harvard Law School Professor Martha Minnow, quoting her belief that “there is no objective [judicial] stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.”
As a result, Judge Sotomayor not only stated her belief that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” going on to make the even more incendiary remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Indeed, if it wasn’t clear from those comments, Judge Sotomayor went on to explicitly state her belief that it is entirely appropriate for her to impose her own personal moral, political and policy preference through her seat on the federal bench, explaining, “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt … continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
All of this is, of course, more than troubling for a country that was founded on the principle of the rule of law and not of men.
As former U.S. Solicitor General and federal appeals court Judge Kenneth Starr told Fox News: “It’s not [a judge’s] job at all to make policy. It rather is for the Congress [or for the President] or for the governor or the legislature to make policy, and for [a judge] to interpret the law as given to [her].”
But that’s only if you truly and deeply believe that, under the rule of law, justice is and should be blind. The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Court has made it clear that neither President Obama, nor the nominee he chose, believe that to be true. Instead, they believe justice isn’t blind and so America’s rule of law must yield to the rule of men, and in this case, women. That should trouble all Americans.
Confessions of a gov junketeer
By Jeanette Colville
This week's dust-up over a mere $700,000 federal employees "group-hug" at the ritzy Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix made me chuckle. Ah, the memories that story brought back from my twenty-five years as an authentic, although sometimes reluctant, gov junketeer.
Oh yes, ask any retired federal government employee and they'll tell you that the "motivational" management conference has always been the norm, rather than the exception, regardless of the dark winds of ObamaNomics. ABC Reporter Josh Bernstein provides an update on the Phoenix gov junketeers who had the misfortune to be observed by the media.
What a naïve young woman I was when I raised my hand in front of the American flag and took the oath of a government civil service employee. Silly me, I had the naïve impression that civil service meant that I would be serving American citizens -- our agency's customers. My mindset was: What can I do to serve the public? Watching those around me, it didn't take long to catch on that the mindset among the more experienced government employees was a little different; it went like this: What can the government do to serve me?
For a civil service novice, this mindset becomes all too visible in the unfolding of the endless stream of agency "conferences," both regional and national, orchestrated under the themes of motivational enhancement, stress management, time management, total quality management, and team building -- you name it, the government sponsored it, and you, the taxpayer, paid for it.
Gov junketeers were offered a wide range of "conference" settings -- the Colorado Rockies, the Arizona desert, the ski slopes of Utah, Alaska snowscapes, the beaches of Hawaii, and the big city nightlife in D.C. and New Orleans. My last all-expense-paid weeklong group hug was at the lavish Phoenix Camelback Inn - perfect for golf lovers
For those Alaska gov junketeers feeling a touch of the long dark winter blues, we hosted an employee management team conference in sunny Hawaii at the beachfront Kona Village Resort. Hula dancing and luau all part of the team building.
For fans of urban shopping and river walking, we gathered at the Portland Marriott Residence Inn. Fine dining and motivational bonding in a trendy setting.
Do you like to ski? Where else than Park City, Utah for a grand interagency gathering to watch ethnic dancers and feast at a motivational banquet. Accommodations included cozy suites with working fireplaces.
A true gov junketeer learns how to take advantage of much more than just the all expense paid fine dining, luxury accommodations, airfare, and cash reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses. If one watches veteran gov junketeers closely, one learns the fine art of advanced vacation junketeering.
While attending a week-long government employee "retirement training" conference at a resort in Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, I noticed that a coworker attended the first session on the first day, and then disappeared for the rest of the week, reappearing on the morning of the final day. Where had he been? Hiking in the mountains, he said, laughing.
When attending a gov junketeer conference in Albuquerque, a coworker attending the first morning of the first day of the week-long conference disappeared for the next four days, arriving back just in time for the closing session. Where had he been? Bird watching all over New Mexico, he said, thanks to having access to a government-paid rental car and gas card.
Other popular gov junketeer motivational conference sites I attended included the luxury Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage overlooking the Cook Inlet. Motivational activities included trips to view glaciers and watch Sockeye salmon runs.
Tired of mountains and deserts? How about a gov junket to the rugged Oregon Coast? The Shalishan Resort is a popular "retreat" for serious team building, in between golf, tennis, and treatments at the spa.
Skilled gov junketeers learn the ropes quickly and never head to the airport without a handful of official government forms giving them tax-free status on all charges and on personal travel allowance reimbursements.
I estimate the cumulative costs to the hard working American taxpayer for my gov junkets over twenty-five years of civil service employment at a minimum of $35,000 -- and for that investment, whether I was in D.C., Denver, Anchorage, Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Reno, I learned how to stretch my arms behind my back (a motivational training exercise), why America is an evil place because of the income gap (motivational banquet keynote speaker at Ft. Collins, Colorado), and how to play a game with five other people called: Stranded on a Desert Island (a motivational team building exercise).
I was but one tiny cog in but one federal agency. If you think AIG spent a lot of money on entertaining its executives in style, they were pikers compared to Uncle Sam.
Islamic Supremacist Group Holds First U.S. Conference
Diane Macedo
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533525,00.html
YouTube
The Khilafah Conference 2009 is scheduled to be held July 19, 2009 at the Hilton Oak Lawn hotel.
A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Sunni network with reported ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda in Iraq's onetime leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It has operated discreetly in the U.S. for decades.
Now, it is coming out of the shadows and openly hosting a July 19 conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," at a posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.
Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it does not engage in terrorism, and it is not recognized by the State Department as a known terror group.
But some terrorism experts say it may be even more dangerous than many groups that are on the terror list.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the oldest, largest indoctrinating organizations for the ideology known as jihadism," Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com.
Phares said that Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than training members to carry out terrorist acts like Al Qaeda, focuses instead on indoctrinating youths between ages of 9 and 18 to absorb the ideology that calls for the formation of an empire — or "khilafah" — that will rule according to Islamic law and condones any means to achieve it, including militant jihad.
Hizb ut-Tahrir often says that its indoctrination "prepares the infantry" that groups like Al Qaeda take into battle, Phares said.
"It's like a middle school that prepares them to be recruited by the high school, which is Al Qaeda," he said. "One would compare them to Hitler youth. ... It's an extremely dangerous organization."
Phares said Hizb ut-Tahrir has strongholds in Western countries, including Britain, France and Spain, and clearly is looking to strengthen its base in the U.S.
"The aim of this conference is to recruit within the Muslim community in America," he said. "The Middle East governments go after them, but in the U.S. they are protected, so having a base here is going to help their cells around the world."
Representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir declined to comment when contacted by FOXNews.com.
Oren Segal, director of Islamic Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, said the conference is cause for concern.
"While they're not, for the most part, engaging in violent activities, and they publicly say that they're against violence, there have been examples around the world where people who have spun off of this group have engaged in violent activity," Segal told FOXNews.com. "That's why they're banned in several Arab and Central Asian countries, as well as Germany and Russia."
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of the group's most famous alumni, New Statesman journalist Shiv Malik reported, citing intelligence sources. In addition to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he also is implicated in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the Bali nightclub bombings and the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
Malik's report, the public policy institute the Nixon Center and the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation agree that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until he was killed in June 2006, was also once a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
They say other former members include Asif Muhammad Hanif, a British man who blew himself up outside a bar in Tel Aviv, killing four people (including himself) and wounding more than 50; and Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical cleric currently banned from Britain who praised the 9/11 attacks, raised funds for Hezbollah and Hamas and called for attacks on the Dublin airport because U.S. troops transferred there on their way to Iraq.
Segal said Hizb ut-Tahrir is becoming more active online in the U.S. — particularly on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace — and now it may be able to add a significant number of Americans to its ranks.
But one place the group will likely not be recruiting is a local Islamic school that backed out of hosting the conference.
The non-profit Aqsa school in Bridgeview said Hizb ut-Tahrir had deceptively portrayed the conference as a bazaar-type event where traditional food and clothing would be sold.
"They misrepresented themselves and the event. We don't want to be in the middle of something like that," the school's business manager Rana Jaber, told CBS News.
The conference's new venue doesn't seem to mind.
Hilton Oak Lawn General Manager Rick Harmon said Hizb ut-Tahrir used its own name and was open about the nature of the event, which includes lectures entitled "Capitalism is Doomed to Fail," "The Global Rise of Islam," and the "Role of Muslims in America," when it reserved the room for the conference.
"We're United States citizens and an American business — if it's legal, we're able to host it, as long as it's nothing that disrupts our other guests' privacy and security," Harmon told FOXNews.com.
According to the Khilafah Conference 2009 Web site, the group aims to do neither.
"Hizb-ut-Tahrir is convinced that change must start in the minds of people, and therefore does not accept for people, or societies, to be forced to change by means of violence and terror," it reads.
The site, which includes a promotional YouTube video, says the group "does not work in the West to change the system of government, but works to project a positive image of Islam to Western society."
Click here to see the conference video.
But former member Ishtiaq Hussain said Hizb ut-Tahrir is repackaging itself as a moderate organization as a tactic, while in reality it is "extremist."
"They don't recognize countries like Israel, for example; they don’t believe Israel should exist," Hussain, now a trainer for the Quilliam Foundation, told FOXNews.com. "Some of their leaders have denied the Holocaust, and they believe homosexuals should be thrown off the highest building. ... It's actually a very dangerous group."
Hizb ut-Tahrir itself has also published writings that seem to contradict its tenet of non-violence.
In his book, "How the Khilafah Was Destroyed," Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, the former global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, says anyone who rules by a non-Islamic system should "either retract or be killed ... even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers."
Click here to read the full excerpt.
Hizb ut-Tahrir's official ruling on the permissibility of hijacking planes says, "If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it."
Click here to read the full ruling (pdf).
And one of the organization's more recent leaflets, published in March, calls for the declaration of "a state of war against America."
Click here to read the leaflet.
But, despite these threats and calls to action, Hizb ut-Tahrir remains off the State Department's terror watch list, and it is free to host the Khilafah Conference and any other event like it.
"In other parts of the world where they're really very active, they've drawn tens of thousands of people to some of their events," Segal said.
"It'll be interesting to see to what degree they'll be welcomed here."
These contractors are installing the steel pillars in concrete to stop vehicles from parking...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7372208
...on the pavement outside a Sports Bar downtown. They are now in the process of cleaning up at the end of the day and anxious to go home. How long do you think it will be before they realize where *their* vehicle is parked?
LIFE IN THE 1500'S
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the1500s:
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying. It's raining cats and dogs.
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, dirt poor. The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, bring home the bacon. They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all
sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave.. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a ....dead ringer.
And that's the truth. Now, whoever said history was boring?
Educate someone. Share these facts with a friend.
"The e-mail Bag"
TO ALL MY AMAZING FRIENDS!!!!
I would never trade my amazing friends, my wonderful life, my loving family for less gray hair or a flatter belly. As I've aged, I've become kinder to myself, and less critical of myself. I've become my own friend. I don't chide myself for eating that extra cookie, or for not making my bed, or for buying that silly cement ornament that I didn't need, but looks so avante garde on my patio. I am entitled to a treat, to be messy, to be extravagant.
I have seen too many dear friends leave this world too soon, before they understood the great freedom that comes with aging. Whose business is it if I choose to read or play on the computer until 4 AM and sleep until noon? I will dance with myself to those wonderful tunes of the 60's &70's, and if I, at the same time, wish to weep over a lost love ... I will.
I will walk the beach in a swim suit that is stretched over a bulging body, and will dive into the waves with abandon if I choose to, despite the pitying glances from the jet set. They, too, will get old.
I know I am sometimes forgetful. But there again, some of life is just as well forgotten. And I eventually remember the important things.
Sure, over the years my heart has been broken. How can your heart not break when you lose a loved one, or when a child suffers, or even when somebody's beloved pet gets hit by a car? But broken hearts are what give us strength and understanding and compassion. A heart never broken is pristine and sterile and will never know the joy of being imperfect.
I am so blessed to have lived long enough to have my hair turning gray, and to have my youthful laughs be forever etched into deep grooves on my face. So many have never laughed, and so many have died before their hair could turn silver.
As you get older, it is easier to be positive. You care less about what other people think. I don't question myself anymore. I've even earned the right to be wrong.
So, to answer your question, I like being older. It has set me free. I like the person I have become I am not going to live forever, but while I am still here, I will not waste time lamenting what could have been, or worrying about what will be. And I shall eat dessert every single day (if I feel like it).
MAY OUR FRIENDSHIP NEVER COME APART, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)