It is all but set in stone that Antonia Villaraigosa will once again be elected to office of Mayor of the city of Los Angeles. But, my question is why? Why would people want to re-elect to Mayor of Los Angeles a man who’s only spent 11% of his time actually working on improving LA. And of that 11% he’s spent most of it meeting with and listening to the special interest groups that got him elected in the first place. His response to these accusations; “I work hard…that’s why Obama wants me to campaign for him”. No, Mr. Villaraigosa, Mr. Obama wanted you to campaign for him because like you he got elected for being a celebrity NOT because he had any definitive stance on any issue. This is not surprising considering that like Mr. Obama, Mr. Villaraigosa uses the color of his skin to deceive people of the same nationality that he is on their side. How is someone who feels sorry for you and pities you on your side? Rather than educated and training CITIZENS of Los Angeles to get better jobs, Mr. Villaraigosa wants to waist money giving ILLEGAL Mexicans a free pass into California and have tax payers pay for Welfare for these illegal immigrants. How is someone who is a proud MECHISTA (what a joke) on California’s side? Help me understand something else. Mr. Villaraigosa’s defense against being accused of spending only 11% of his time working in LA is to boast about how he spent his time away from LA campaigning for Obama? Sounds like an empty defense to me, and are people stupid enough to buy into it? The gullibility of “Angelinos” and “Californians” alike never ceases to amaze. On a recent interview, Mr. Villaraigosa defending his being out of Los Angeles so much by saying “I’ve worked hard from the day I was sworn in and I will unto my last day…” Let’s make that day sooner than he thinks, because being the mayor of Los Angeles should involve more than just “working” on the first and last days you’re in office and the job should go to someone who actually cares enough to stay in the city rather than worrying about the next office they’ll be running for. WHEN (not if) Mr. Villaraigosa abandons Los Angeles to run for Governor of California, he will be leaving Los Angeles in the hands of someone who is even less prepared to take over (which is hard to believe but true), so why not elect a Mayor who isn’t planning on abandoning you for the next job? Do not waste your vote on another step ladder politician. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR “The 11% Mayor”. Even more disgusting are these ads toting how crime has gone down during Villaraigosa’s term as mayor. These half truths are what lead us to elect a man not prepared to run his own state let alone this country. While it IS true that the MURDER rate has gone down, it is ALSO true that ALL other VIOLENT CRIMES have gone UP, including RAPE, theft, assault, etc… I wonder what Mr. Villaraigosa has to say about this? We wouldn’t know, since he REFUSES to debate anybody he’s running against. I guess Mr. Villaraigosa and Chief Bratton don’t consider the fact that rape has doubled every year for the last several years a problem. I KNOW I’ll be saying this again once the California Governor’s race begins, but I hope I NEVER have to utter “11% Governor” because if that happens what this state is suffering now is NOTHING compared to what’s to come.
http://www.philjennerjahn.com/
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2008/12/antonio-villaraigosa-hardest-working.html
http://www.americanpatrol.com/CALIFORNIA/VILLARAIGOSA/mechistaformayorindex.html
Friday, February 27, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
1 IN A MILLION!!!
Throughout a man’s search for what will eventually be his life mate, he meets ONE MILLION (give or take LOL) females. Out of those one million females are 900,000 females, which I call GIRLS who won’t even give a guy the time of day unless they find something physically attractive about him. Out of the remaining 100,000 are 90,000 females that believe that just because a guy is trying to talk to them, it means they’re trying to sleep with them. I call these females (and yes this WILL offend) HOOKERS. Yes, that’s offensive isn’t it? Well, I’m sorry females, but I’m only treating you the way you treat yourselves. When you A S Sume that just because I’m trying to talk to you it means I’m trying to sleep with you, YOU are already limiting YOURSELF to believe that ALL I could ever possibly see in you is your body. From the remaining 10,000 females you have 5,000 that I like to call MEAT; another derogatory term, but deservedly so. How many times has a guy been yelled at for treating a female like a “piece of meat”? As she pulls up her top that barely covers her chest and pulls down her skirt that is letting her a s s hang out. I’ll NEVER understand why females wear clothes that are so short and tight, they have to be adjusting them every 10 minutes. If that’s all you have to offer then I totally understand why you’d do it, but then DO NOT get offended when guys treat you the way you treat yourself, like a piece of MEAT! Out of these remaining 5,000 females are 4,000 that I call CHILDREN because they’ll only talk to you as long as you’re telling them something they agree with or like to hear. Remember when you were a child, you’d pick your friends based on whether or not you had things in common and shared the same interests? Yeah, some people never grow out of that mentality. Out of the 1,000 females left I call 250 of them HYPOCRITES. This is because these females DEMAND that you respect them and accept them the way they are, but are criticizing you, judging you and correcting everything they find wrong with you and when push comes to shove, they’re always looking for that ONE “reason” to turn their back on you. Out of the 750 females left, take away the females who would sleep with a man on the first date (or within the first year of knowing him for that matter) and the females who would live with a man before they’re married (and are stupid enough to wonder why he doesn’t respect you) and the females who can’t go out without having to drink and the females who CHOOSE NOT to speak proper English and the females who CHOOSE to curse when talking and the females who let their Zodiac sign dictate whether or not they’d get along with someone, the females who’s life motto is some pathetic cliché statement like “I hate drama” or “I’m drama free” or “Only God can judge me”, the IGNORANT and SUPERFICIAL, the IMMATURE and SHALLOW, the INSECURE and SUPERFICIAL and a man will MAYBE have met 100 females in his lifetime that can truly be defined as WOMEN. Out of those 100 WOMEN, a man will be blessed enough to meet TEN WOMEN who also deserve to be called LADIES. These LADIES are WOMEN he knows he can trust and knows trust him. Out of these TEN LADIES, a man is truly blessed IF he can find FIVE LADIES he can also call his FRIENDS. These FRIENDS are LADIES that deserve his respect and have EARNED (respect is NOT given, but EARNED) his respect in return. A man will know he found favor in God’s eyes if out of those FIVE FRIENDS he can meet the ONE who EARNS the title of WIFE.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. The BOYS are giving me “props” in their head, while the GIRLS are cursing me in the mind, but before you go there, let’s flip the script for just one second…
In her search for what will be HER lifemate, a woman will meet MAYBE 100,000 males (let’s be honest, they’re just not as desperate as males). Out of those 100,000 males, 99,000 of them are NOTHING but ignorant, insecure, immature, self centered, shallow, selfish little BOYS interested in NOTHING but getting her in bed. Of the 1,000 males remaining, MAYBE she’ll meet 50 REAL MEN in her lifetime. Out of those 50 ONLY 25 of them will be GENTLEMEN. Of those 25, MAYBE 10 will be considered TRUE FRIENDS. Out of those 10 FRIENDS, she’ll be blessed to find ONE MAN who deserves to be her HUSBAND.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. The BOYS are giving me “props” in their head, while the GIRLS are cursing me in the mind, but before you go there, let’s flip the script for just one second…
In her search for what will be HER lifemate, a woman will meet MAYBE 100,000 males (let’s be honest, they’re just not as desperate as males). Out of those 100,000 males, 99,000 of them are NOTHING but ignorant, insecure, immature, self centered, shallow, selfish little BOYS interested in NOTHING but getting her in bed. Of the 1,000 males remaining, MAYBE she’ll meet 50 REAL MEN in her lifetime. Out of those 50 ONLY 25 of them will be GENTLEMEN. Of those 25, MAYBE 10 will be considered TRUE FRIENDS. Out of those 10 FRIENDS, she’ll be blessed to find ONE MAN who deserves to be her HUSBAND.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
30 YEARS OF BIBLE LIES!!!
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
(II Peter 3:15-17)
30 years… That’s how many years Satan has been able to deceive so called “Christians” with the poor excuse for a Bible known as the NIV (New International Version) Bible. For 30 years Satan has been able to convince “Christians” that this watered down “translation” of the Bible was “easier” to read and therefore better to understand God’s word. Can anybody please explain to me how a rewritten piece of literature that removed over 200 scriptures from the original text of the Bible makes it “easier” to understand God’s word? How can changing the definitive words used in the original text of the Bible to vague loose words used in the NIV help someone attempting to obey God’s commandments in doing so? Maybe, removing 200 scriptures doesn’t count for much to you. Maybe vagueness helps you in living the life you CHOOSE to live. But, do you also CHOOSE to ignore the fact that in Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer’s name is replaced with “Morning Star”, a name given to ONLY Jesus Christ? If you don’t find a book that replaces Satan’s name with Christ’s name appalling then I don’t know what it would take to convince you of the danger you’re CHOOSING to walk into.
I’m not surprised that people would want to read the NIV Bible. These are probably the same people who believe the lie the NIV teaches that “all who hear God’s word are saved”. It isn’t enough to just “hear” God’s word (Ephesians 1:13), you MUST believe it, receive and SPEAK IT with FAITH (Romans 10:9-10). How powerful is removing a sing word? The NIV removes words such as “Godhead”, “mercyseat”, “remission”, “Jehovah”, “omnipotent”, “Comforter”, “Holy Ghost”, “Messiah, “infallible and MANY more. So, I ask again, how powerful is removing a single word? How about “begotten”? The NIV removes this word from one of the most famous scriptures in the Bible, John 3:16. I guess this would make sense if I were a Mormon who believed that Jesus was only ONE of God’s MANY children or a Jehovah’s Witness who believes that Satan and Jesus are brothers.
II Timothy 2:15 teaches us to STUDY God’s word so that we know what is and is NOT the right way to live the life God wants us to live, but in the NIV Bible “study” is replaced with “do your best”? “Do your best”? “We all have to sin a little”? “It’s hard to be a Christian”? “Nobody can obey ALL Ten Commandments”? Do you see a pattern here? No wonder “Christians” make every excuse in the world not to obey God’s word, because after all “I’m just doing my best”. Imagine there’s a leak in a dam and if it’s not fixed the dam will break and the water will flood a city and kill everybody. If you’re the one in charge of hiring the person to fix it are you going to find just anybody and tell them “do your best”? Are you going to tell a heart surgeon to “do your best”?
What about I Timothy 6:20 which warns us against “science” that claims itself to be fact, but in reality is FALSE? The NIV removes any reference to “science”. Now can you think of any reason why Satan would remove a scripture warning against “false science” **cough**evolution**cough**? If that’s not enough for you, the NIV actually completely changes Philippians 2:6 from Jesus being EQUAL to God to Jesus NOT being equal to God. Is it no wonder that God warns us of those who would change God’s TRUTH into a LIE (Romans 1:25)? Satan has gone out of his way to hide the TRUTH of God’s word, so that those who are lost would remain lost. (II Corinthians 4:3-4).
Already discussed is the fact that the NIV removes the idea of Jesus being God’s ONLY Son, removes Jesus and God being EQUAL and at times doesn’t differentiate between Satan and Jesus, but there’s more. Jesus was, is and will be forever (Hebrews 13:8) but in NIV’s version of Micah 5:2 limits Jesus to having a specific time of origin. More than that, the NIV turns God manifesting himself in flesh into him simply appearing in “a body”(I Timothy 3:16). Well, it’s no wonder there’s been so many lunatics claiming to be Christ. And guess what, the Bible warns us about this as well (Luke 21:8). As a Christian, one of our foundations in believing in Christ is the belief in the “virgin birth”, correct? Well, the NIV Bible doesn’t seem to believe in it; they’ve made JOSEPH the “father” of Jesus, not God. “What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS”. Have you ever heard that song? Well, it’s true, but not if you read the NIV Bible, because the NIV completely removes the power of Christ’s blood from scripture (Hebrews 9:22).
So, does any of that convince you? Well then, maybe this will. Zondervan Publishers, the company that publishes the NIV Bible is OWNED by Harper Collins who ALSO publishes the SATANIC BIBLE and the JOY OF GAY SEX. Well, how convenient is that? Harper Collins is a subsidiary of News Corp., owned by Rupert Murdock. News Corp.’s empire includes FOX Broadcasting which produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television as well as the British newspaper the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups. What’s wrong with that right? They’re just businesses. So, I guess Amos 3:3 is “just a scripture” that plainly says “Can two walk together, except they be agreed”. How can the Bible be in agreement with such filth producers such as these two companies? What about when Christ plainly says that something CORRUPT cannot produce anything good (Matthew 7:17-18)? What does the Bible have in common with these companies (II Corinthians 6:14)?
The agenda of the NIV Bible is clear, to minimize the power and deity of Christ, to turn the black and white definitive message of the Bible into several vague shades of gray and to minimize the fact that God DEMANDS us to be separate from the world and from SIN! The New International Version Bible is NOT a complete Bible. The NIV is NOT THE BIBLE! The ONLY complete and correctly translated Bible was, is and will always ONLY be the KING JAMES VERSION. The KJV is the ONLY Bible that lines up word for word with not only every authenticated Biblical manuscript, but also with history, science and geography. Now I know… the KJV is so very hard to understand… wait, no it isn’t. According to a Grade Level research study done by Flesch-Kincaid the KJV read EASIER than any other translation of the Bible. Is it not both funny and amazing then that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not owned by a man or company? The King James Bible has NO COPYRIGHT ownership, but rather its copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which allows it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME for ANY REASON. The King James Version is the ONLY Bible not BOUND by man (II Timothy 2:9).
If none of this has convinced you of the dangers of the NIV Bible (and ALL other translates other than the KING JAMES BIBLE) than I invite you to read the following story found at this link:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(Revelations 22:18-19)
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/animaelupinae/bible_niv.html
http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/05/agendadriven_bi.html
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
(II Peter 3:15-17)
30 years… That’s how many years Satan has been able to deceive so called “Christians” with the poor excuse for a Bible known as the NIV (New International Version) Bible. For 30 years Satan has been able to convince “Christians” that this watered down “translation” of the Bible was “easier” to read and therefore better to understand God’s word. Can anybody please explain to me how a rewritten piece of literature that removed over 200 scriptures from the original text of the Bible makes it “easier” to understand God’s word? How can changing the definitive words used in the original text of the Bible to vague loose words used in the NIV help someone attempting to obey God’s commandments in doing so? Maybe, removing 200 scriptures doesn’t count for much to you. Maybe vagueness helps you in living the life you CHOOSE to live. But, do you also CHOOSE to ignore the fact that in Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer’s name is replaced with “Morning Star”, a name given to ONLY Jesus Christ? If you don’t find a book that replaces Satan’s name with Christ’s name appalling then I don’t know what it would take to convince you of the danger you’re CHOOSING to walk into.
I’m not surprised that people would want to read the NIV Bible. These are probably the same people who believe the lie the NIV teaches that “all who hear God’s word are saved”. It isn’t enough to just “hear” God’s word (Ephesians 1:13), you MUST believe it, receive and SPEAK IT with FAITH (Romans 10:9-10). How powerful is removing a sing word? The NIV removes words such as “Godhead”, “mercyseat”, “remission”, “Jehovah”, “omnipotent”, “Comforter”, “Holy Ghost”, “Messiah, “infallible and MANY more. So, I ask again, how powerful is removing a single word? How about “begotten”? The NIV removes this word from one of the most famous scriptures in the Bible, John 3:16. I guess this would make sense if I were a Mormon who believed that Jesus was only ONE of God’s MANY children or a Jehovah’s Witness who believes that Satan and Jesus are brothers.
II Timothy 2:15 teaches us to STUDY God’s word so that we know what is and is NOT the right way to live the life God wants us to live, but in the NIV Bible “study” is replaced with “do your best”? “Do your best”? “We all have to sin a little”? “It’s hard to be a Christian”? “Nobody can obey ALL Ten Commandments”? Do you see a pattern here? No wonder “Christians” make every excuse in the world not to obey God’s word, because after all “I’m just doing my best”. Imagine there’s a leak in a dam and if it’s not fixed the dam will break and the water will flood a city and kill everybody. If you’re the one in charge of hiring the person to fix it are you going to find just anybody and tell them “do your best”? Are you going to tell a heart surgeon to “do your best”?
What about I Timothy 6:20 which warns us against “science” that claims itself to be fact, but in reality is FALSE? The NIV removes any reference to “science”. Now can you think of any reason why Satan would remove a scripture warning against “false science” **cough**evolution**cough**? If that’s not enough for you, the NIV actually completely changes Philippians 2:6 from Jesus being EQUAL to God to Jesus NOT being equal to God. Is it no wonder that God warns us of those who would change God’s TRUTH into a LIE (Romans 1:25)? Satan has gone out of his way to hide the TRUTH of God’s word, so that those who are lost would remain lost. (II Corinthians 4:3-4).
Already discussed is the fact that the NIV removes the idea of Jesus being God’s ONLY Son, removes Jesus and God being EQUAL and at times doesn’t differentiate between Satan and Jesus, but there’s more. Jesus was, is and will be forever (Hebrews 13:8) but in NIV’s version of Micah 5:2 limits Jesus to having a specific time of origin. More than that, the NIV turns God manifesting himself in flesh into him simply appearing in “a body”(I Timothy 3:16). Well, it’s no wonder there’s been so many lunatics claiming to be Christ. And guess what, the Bible warns us about this as well (Luke 21:8). As a Christian, one of our foundations in believing in Christ is the belief in the “virgin birth”, correct? Well, the NIV Bible doesn’t seem to believe in it; they’ve made JOSEPH the “father” of Jesus, not God. “What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS”. Have you ever heard that song? Well, it’s true, but not if you read the NIV Bible, because the NIV completely removes the power of Christ’s blood from scripture (Hebrews 9:22).
So, does any of that convince you? Well then, maybe this will. Zondervan Publishers, the company that publishes the NIV Bible is OWNED by Harper Collins who ALSO publishes the SATANIC BIBLE and the JOY OF GAY SEX. Well, how convenient is that? Harper Collins is a subsidiary of News Corp., owned by Rupert Murdock. News Corp.’s empire includes FOX Broadcasting which produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television as well as the British newspaper the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups. What’s wrong with that right? They’re just businesses. So, I guess Amos 3:3 is “just a scripture” that plainly says “Can two walk together, except they be agreed”. How can the Bible be in agreement with such filth producers such as these two companies? What about when Christ plainly says that something CORRUPT cannot produce anything good (Matthew 7:17-18)? What does the Bible have in common with these companies (II Corinthians 6:14)?
The agenda of the NIV Bible is clear, to minimize the power and deity of Christ, to turn the black and white definitive message of the Bible into several vague shades of gray and to minimize the fact that God DEMANDS us to be separate from the world and from SIN! The New International Version Bible is NOT a complete Bible. The NIV is NOT THE BIBLE! The ONLY complete and correctly translated Bible was, is and will always ONLY be the KING JAMES VERSION. The KJV is the ONLY Bible that lines up word for word with not only every authenticated Biblical manuscript, but also with history, science and geography. Now I know… the KJV is so very hard to understand… wait, no it isn’t. According to a Grade Level research study done by Flesch-Kincaid the KJV read EASIER than any other translation of the Bible. Is it not both funny and amazing then that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not owned by a man or company? The King James Bible has NO COPYRIGHT ownership, but rather its copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which allows it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME for ANY REASON. The King James Version is the ONLY Bible not BOUND by man (II Timothy 2:9).
If none of this has convinced you of the dangers of the NIV Bible (and ALL other translates other than the KING JAMES BIBLE) than I invite you to read the following story found at this link:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(Revelations 22:18-19)
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/animaelupinae/bible_niv.html
http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/05/agendadriven_bi.html
Monday, February 16, 2009
An Obama-Reagan presidency?
Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 2/16/2009 7:00:00 AM
What's the state of the republic — and its citizens — this Presidents Day 2009? It is a state of deep confusion. Here are some polls to ponder, as America considers presidents past and new. Brace yourself. Before he was elected president, Senator Barack Obama was ranked the most liberal member of a very liberal U.S. Senate by the respected, non-partisan National Journal, which is famous for its rankings of members of Congress. In short, then, a decisive majority of Americans elected as president the most liberal major presidential candidate in the history of the republic. This was unprecedented.
To many of us, including myself, this suggested that Americans had drifted to the left. It turns out that they have not. Consider some other surveys: For a long time now, thanks to the Reagan presidency, Americans have called themselves "conservative" rather than "liberal" by margins of roughly two-to-one. In 2000, the year George W. Bush was elected president, 18 percent of Americans said they were liberal vs. 36 percent who said they were conservative (38 percent opted for the moderate label). This has been consistent for quite a while. Generally, self-identified liberals have hovered around 20 percent, while conservatives have ranged in the upper-30 percent, sometimes above 40 percent. Surely that must have changed in 2008, right — with the election of Obama? No. In 2008, despite Obama winning the presidency by 54 to 46 percent, 21 percent of Americans said they were liberal vs. 38 percent who said they were conservative (36 percent chose moderate). Although both liberals and conservatives alike picked up small gains; the difference between 2000 and 2008 was virtually identical. If that seems contradictory for a nation that voted for a man from the far left as president...well, that's because it is. But that's nothing compared to the inconsistencies in another poll: A nationwide survey by Clarus Research Group asked American voters which president should be the model for Barack Obama in shaping his presidency. One would expect Americans to pick a liberal president — since, of course, Obama is a liberal. Perhaps FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter. Instead, the top choice was America's most conservative president: Ronald Reagan. How could that be? Answer: it cannot. It is impossible. Barack Obama cannot model his presidency after that of Ronald Reagan. The two are irreconcilable. A large square cannot fit into a tiny circle. You cannot take a president who is a paragon of liberalism and one who was a paragon of conservatism and match them ideologically. That's not fair to Obama. In fact, Obama would not want to do that, nor would his staff — nor would Ronald Reagan. If that's not bad enough, the contradictions get worse when you look at policy issues. Pick your poison — here's one: An October Marist poll found that only a sliver of Americans, 8 percent, favor allowing abortion at any reason at any stage of pregnancy. Well, those same Americans just elected a man who is seeking to remove any abortion restrictions whatsoever (Freedom of Choice Act) — including those agreed to by bipartisan legislatures all over America — possibly removing freedom-of-conscience exemptions for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortions, seeking federal funding of abortion, abortion in military hospitals, repeal of the Hyde Amendment, taxpayer funding to promote and perform abortion overseas (already done by executive order), etc., etc. Senator Obama had a 100 percent pro-choice rating from NARAL and a 0 percent pro-life rating from National Right to Life. That's one policy issue. I could cite other divergent numbers on taxes and government spending, but I don't want to send you running for a straightjacket. Indeed, this is positively maddening. How can Americans believe red and vote blue? It begs a troubling, indelicate question for both liberals and conservatives alike: Can we trust the American public to vote rationally? That may seem harsh, even condescending, but it is an inescapable consideration given the data. The data is particularly a jolt to Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan frequently declared that you can always trust the American people to make the right decisions. Of course, that assumes a knowledgeable, well-informed public — educated by schools and media that are genuinely balanced in exposing a wide variety of points of view. It also assumes a citizenry that votes according to ideas or ideology. Apparently, for many Americans, those things did not happen on November 4, 2008. It also means that despite President Obama's sizable margin of victory, he did not get a mandate — certainly not a liberal mandate. The public, at best, gave him a mandate for some sort of "change," but not a change to the left. Where does this leave us this Presidents Day? Good question.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=422052
What's the state of the republic — and its citizens — this Presidents Day 2009? It is a state of deep confusion. Here are some polls to ponder, as America considers presidents past and new. Brace yourself. Before he was elected president, Senator Barack Obama was ranked the most liberal member of a very liberal U.S. Senate by the respected, non-partisan National Journal, which is famous for its rankings of members of Congress. In short, then, a decisive majority of Americans elected as president the most liberal major presidential candidate in the history of the republic. This was unprecedented.
To many of us, including myself, this suggested that Americans had drifted to the left. It turns out that they have not. Consider some other surveys: For a long time now, thanks to the Reagan presidency, Americans have called themselves "conservative" rather than "liberal" by margins of roughly two-to-one. In 2000, the year George W. Bush was elected president, 18 percent of Americans said they were liberal vs. 36 percent who said they were conservative (38 percent opted for the moderate label). This has been consistent for quite a while. Generally, self-identified liberals have hovered around 20 percent, while conservatives have ranged in the upper-30 percent, sometimes above 40 percent. Surely that must have changed in 2008, right — with the election of Obama? No. In 2008, despite Obama winning the presidency by 54 to 46 percent, 21 percent of Americans said they were liberal vs. 38 percent who said they were conservative (36 percent chose moderate). Although both liberals and conservatives alike picked up small gains; the difference between 2000 and 2008 was virtually identical. If that seems contradictory for a nation that voted for a man from the far left as president...well, that's because it is. But that's nothing compared to the inconsistencies in another poll: A nationwide survey by Clarus Research Group asked American voters which president should be the model for Barack Obama in shaping his presidency. One would expect Americans to pick a liberal president — since, of course, Obama is a liberal. Perhaps FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter. Instead, the top choice was America's most conservative president: Ronald Reagan. How could that be? Answer: it cannot. It is impossible. Barack Obama cannot model his presidency after that of Ronald Reagan. The two are irreconcilable. A large square cannot fit into a tiny circle. You cannot take a president who is a paragon of liberalism and one who was a paragon of conservatism and match them ideologically. That's not fair to Obama. In fact, Obama would not want to do that, nor would his staff — nor would Ronald Reagan. If that's not bad enough, the contradictions get worse when you look at policy issues. Pick your poison — here's one: An October Marist poll found that only a sliver of Americans, 8 percent, favor allowing abortion at any reason at any stage of pregnancy. Well, those same Americans just elected a man who is seeking to remove any abortion restrictions whatsoever (Freedom of Choice Act) — including those agreed to by bipartisan legislatures all over America — possibly removing freedom-of-conscience exemptions for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortions, seeking federal funding of abortion, abortion in military hospitals, repeal of the Hyde Amendment, taxpayer funding to promote and perform abortion overseas (already done by executive order), etc., etc. Senator Obama had a 100 percent pro-choice rating from NARAL and a 0 percent pro-life rating from National Right to Life. That's one policy issue. I could cite other divergent numbers on taxes and government spending, but I don't want to send you running for a straightjacket. Indeed, this is positively maddening. How can Americans believe red and vote blue? It begs a troubling, indelicate question for both liberals and conservatives alike: Can we trust the American public to vote rationally? That may seem harsh, even condescending, but it is an inescapable consideration given the data. The data is particularly a jolt to Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan frequently declared that you can always trust the American people to make the right decisions. Of course, that assumes a knowledgeable, well-informed public — educated by schools and media that are genuinely balanced in exposing a wide variety of points of view. It also assumes a citizenry that votes according to ideas or ideology. Apparently, for many Americans, those things did not happen on November 4, 2008. It also means that despite President Obama's sizable margin of victory, he did not get a mandate — certainly not a liberal mandate. The public, at best, gave him a mandate for some sort of "change," but not a change to the left. Where does this leave us this Presidents Day? Good question.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=422052
Pro-marriage speech garners professor's profane wrath
Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 2/16/2009 10:00:00 AM
After being called a "fascist" by his professor, a Christian California student has filed suit against his college for violations of his free-speech rights.
Less than a month after voters in California decided to amend their state constitution and protect traditional marriage, Jonathan Lopez -- in a public speaking class -- shared his beliefs on faith and marriage. David French of the Alliance Defense Fund picks up the story. "Jonathan talked about his faith -- and one of the things he talked about in context of his faith was...marriage," says French. "He read from the dictionary definition of marriage. The professor stopped the class, called him a 'fascist b_____d' -- [he] used the expletive -- [and] told the class that anyone who wanted to could leave if they were offended...." According to an ADF press release, when no one got up to leave, the instructor simply dismissed the class, effectively ending Lopez's speech -- which violated the student's free-speech rights, adds the attorney, especially since other students made speeches on other subjects. Religious speech, notes French, apparently was excluded from the open-ended speech assignment. "You just cannot shut down student speech like that," states French, who explains that Lopez was well within the confines of his professor's assignment, and that the professor's actions not only constitute viewpoint discrimination but also comprise "retaliation" because he disagreed with Lopez's religious beliefs. According to the ADF attorney, the professor was not yet finished. "When [Lopez later] complained about what was an obvious act of censorship, he was threatened with expulsion by that same professor," he says. The speech professor is identified as John Matteson of Los Angeles Community College. ADF reports that after Proposition 8 (the marriage-related constitutional amendment) was approved on November 4, Matteson told his entire class: "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist b_____d." Ultimately Matteson refused to grade Lopez's November 24 speech, and wrote on the evaluation: "Ask God what your grade is."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=422144
After being called a "fascist" by his professor, a Christian California student has filed suit against his college for violations of his free-speech rights.
Less than a month after voters in California decided to amend their state constitution and protect traditional marriage, Jonathan Lopez -- in a public speaking class -- shared his beliefs on faith and marriage. David French of the Alliance Defense Fund picks up the story. "Jonathan talked about his faith -- and one of the things he talked about in context of his faith was...marriage," says French. "He read from the dictionary definition of marriage. The professor stopped the class, called him a 'fascist b_____d' -- [he] used the expletive -- [and] told the class that anyone who wanted to could leave if they were offended...." According to an ADF press release, when no one got up to leave, the instructor simply dismissed the class, effectively ending Lopez's speech -- which violated the student's free-speech rights, adds the attorney, especially since other students made speeches on other subjects. Religious speech, notes French, apparently was excluded from the open-ended speech assignment. "You just cannot shut down student speech like that," states French, who explains that Lopez was well within the confines of his professor's assignment, and that the professor's actions not only constitute viewpoint discrimination but also comprise "retaliation" because he disagreed with Lopez's religious beliefs. According to the ADF attorney, the professor was not yet finished. "When [Lopez later] complained about what was an obvious act of censorship, he was threatened with expulsion by that same professor," he says. The speech professor is identified as John Matteson of Los Angeles Community College. ADF reports that after Proposition 8 (the marriage-related constitutional amendment) was approved on November 4, Matteson told his entire class: "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist b_____d." Ultimately Matteson refused to grade Lopez's November 24 speech, and wrote on the evaluation: "Ask God what your grade is."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=422144
Friday, February 13, 2009
Brooke Heike young woman booted from team for being straight
Pete Chagnon and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 2/13/2009 6:00:00 AM
Central Michigan University is being sued after one of their women's basketball players said she was kicked off the team due to her heterosexuality.
Brooke Heike was a high school basketball star who was aggressively sought after by several colleges that wanted the league MVP from Washington Township, Michigan, to continue her record-breaking rebounding and shot-blocking skills on their campus. After leading her team to its first conference title in 18 years as a high school senior, the 6-foot-2 forward decided to attend Central Michigan University, which offered her a full scholarship. But Heike says she fell out of favor in 2007 with CMU's new women's basketball head coach, Sue Guevara, and was eventually kicked off the team. She claims the coach, who is allegedly lesbian, took issue with her heterosexuality. Cindy Rhodes Victor of the Victor Firm, PLLC is representing Heike. "She was not only kicked off the team, but her scholarship was taken away because the coach kept telling her that she wasn't her 'type,'" Victor explains. "And when Brooke would ask what was that, [Guevara] would say 'I don't want you to wear makeup, you have a boyfriend, I don't want you to have a boyfriend...you're too girly girl' -- that type of thing." Victor says Heike was an excellent basketball player. She adds that her teammates liked her, but still Heike's coach refused to help her out. Heike ended up hiring independent trainers to help her. According to Heike's attorney, cancellation of elementary education major's scholarship came as a surprise. "She wasn't even told ever that her scholarship was in jeopardy or that her position was in jeopardy," says Victor. "Out of the blue she gets a letter from the financial aid office that says your scholarship's gone." A teammate then told the 20-year-old that "the coach announced yesterday that you were off the team because you're not happy." CMU representatives refused a request for an interview, but instead emailed OneNewsNow a statement saying they are familiar with the allegations and that they will defend their position in court. According to the case file, the coach in question was fired from a coaching job at another school in 2003. Team members at that school accused Sue Guevara of similar actions.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=418808
Central Michigan University is being sued after one of their women's basketball players said she was kicked off the team due to her heterosexuality.
Brooke Heike was a high school basketball star who was aggressively sought after by several colleges that wanted the league MVP from Washington Township, Michigan, to continue her record-breaking rebounding and shot-blocking skills on their campus. After leading her team to its first conference title in 18 years as a high school senior, the 6-foot-2 forward decided to attend Central Michigan University, which offered her a full scholarship. But Heike says she fell out of favor in 2007 with CMU's new women's basketball head coach, Sue Guevara, and was eventually kicked off the team. She claims the coach, who is allegedly lesbian, took issue with her heterosexuality. Cindy Rhodes Victor of the Victor Firm, PLLC is representing Heike. "She was not only kicked off the team, but her scholarship was taken away because the coach kept telling her that she wasn't her 'type,'" Victor explains. "And when Brooke would ask what was that, [Guevara] would say 'I don't want you to wear makeup, you have a boyfriend, I don't want you to have a boyfriend...you're too girly girl' -- that type of thing." Victor says Heike was an excellent basketball player. She adds that her teammates liked her, but still Heike's coach refused to help her out. Heike ended up hiring independent trainers to help her. According to Heike's attorney, cancellation of elementary education major's scholarship came as a surprise. "She wasn't even told ever that her scholarship was in jeopardy or that her position was in jeopardy," says Victor. "Out of the blue she gets a letter from the financial aid office that says your scholarship's gone." A teammate then told the 20-year-old that "the coach announced yesterday that you were off the team because you're not happy." CMU representatives refused a request for an interview, but instead emailed OneNewsNow a statement saying they are familiar with the allegations and that they will defend their position in court. According to the case file, the coach in question was fired from a coaching job at another school in 2003. Team members at that school accused Sue Guevara of similar actions.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=418808
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A call to action from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
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.
A call to action from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint to stop ACLU supported bill
Democrats vote to discriminate against Christians and people of faith
Take Action!
Send an e-mail and call your representative and two senators today! Tell them to remove the language discriminating against people of faith. In addition, please take the time to call your representative and two senators. The phone number where you can reach both your representative and two senators is 202-224-3121.
February 9, 2009
President Obama's stimulus bill discriminates against Christians and people of faith. The stimulus bans universities and colleges from using funds to renovate buildings where students engage in "religious worship."U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike from the economic stimulus bill language that discriminates against people of faith. Senator DeMint's amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving restoration funds, from allowing "sectarian instruction" or "religious worship" within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious organizations."This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," said Sen. DeMint. "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith. These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to keep people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill."This is now an ACLU stimulus designed to trigger lawsuits designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation. This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of 'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America" he continued."Our culture cannot survive without faith and our nation cannot survive without freedom. This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable."This funding restriction is unconstitutional. In the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities (or schools) is unconstitutional.Pages 164-165 of the stimulus contain the following prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion available for renovation of public or private college and university facilities.
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich urges Christian activists and other conservatives to e-mail and call their representative and senators demanding that the language discriminating against people of faith be removed.Gingrich feels that if Christian activists would have enough courage and holy anger to e-mail and call their representatives and senators, a number of Democrats would vote no on final passage. We should demand that this anti-religious provision be removed.Christians have not expressed enough outrage focused on the concept that people of faith are being taken advantage of by the stimulus bill during a time of crisis. They are being stolen from them when they are down and out and looking in good faith to the government for help. Instead of the stimulus we need, the liberals are getting the pork that they want -- for themselves, their families, and their friends. They are pickpockets and thieves preying on the down and out.It's as if the Good Samaritan had come over to the man who was robbed and left for dead, bent over, and reached for his wallet and ran on his way instead of helping. It's like the looter who takes advantage of a natural disaster to steal."The liberals are taking advantage of a crisis, just like Rahm Emanuel said. His quote: "'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,' Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week." - WSJ, Nov. 21, 2008.America is in crisis, and the liberals are looting America's future to pay off their special interests. This is corruption of the highest order. E-mail and call your representative and two senators today!
Take Action!
Send an e-mail and call your representative and two senators today! Tell them to remove the language discriminating against people of faith. In addition, please take the time to call your representative and two senators. The phone number where you can reach both your representative and two senators is 202-224-3121.
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 ChairmanAmerican Family Association
Donate with confidence to AFA
(gifts are tax-deductible)
Please take a few minutes and invite your friends to AFA ActionAlert.
It's Not Gay The sanitized version of homosexuality being presented is not the whole truth.
AFA Receives High Marks Please read this information before you decide to give a financial gift to American Family Association.
Spiritual Heritage Tours Join Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders for a tour of our nation's capital with a focus on the deep Christian heritage of our country.
In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence.
You are subscribed as marcel_terrazas@yahoo.com. Unsubscribe Update E-mail Address
If you are a Federal Civilian, Postal or Military Employee, please consider AFA (#12037) for your annual CFC participation.
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 Copyright ©2009 All Rights Reserved
A call to action from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint to stop ACLU supported bill
Democrats vote to discriminate against Christians and people of faith
Take Action!
Send an e-mail and call your representative and two senators today! Tell them to remove the language discriminating against people of faith. In addition, please take the time to call your representative and two senators. The phone number where you can reach both your representative and two senators is 202-224-3121.
February 9, 2009
President Obama's stimulus bill discriminates against Christians and people of faith. The stimulus bans universities and colleges from using funds to renovate buildings where students engage in "religious worship."U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike from the economic stimulus bill language that discriminates against people of faith. Senator DeMint's amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving restoration funds, from allowing "sectarian instruction" or "religious worship" within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious organizations."This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," said Sen. DeMint. "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith. These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to keep people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill."This is now an ACLU stimulus designed to trigger lawsuits designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation. This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of 'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America" he continued."Our culture cannot survive without faith and our nation cannot survive without freedom. This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable."This funding restriction is unconstitutional. In the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities (or schools) is unconstitutional.Pages 164-165 of the stimulus contain the following prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion available for renovation of public or private college and university facilities.
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich urges Christian activists and other conservatives to e-mail and call their representative and senators demanding that the language discriminating against people of faith be removed.Gingrich feels that if Christian activists would have enough courage and holy anger to e-mail and call their representatives and senators, a number of Democrats would vote no on final passage. We should demand that this anti-religious provision be removed.Christians have not expressed enough outrage focused on the concept that people of faith are being taken advantage of by the stimulus bill during a time of crisis. They are being stolen from them when they are down and out and looking in good faith to the government for help. Instead of the stimulus we need, the liberals are getting the pork that they want -- for themselves, their families, and their friends. They are pickpockets and thieves preying on the down and out.It's as if the Good Samaritan had come over to the man who was robbed and left for dead, bent over, and reached for his wallet and ran on his way instead of helping. It's like the looter who takes advantage of a natural disaster to steal."The liberals are taking advantage of a crisis, just like Rahm Emanuel said. His quote: "'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,' Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week." - WSJ, Nov. 21, 2008.America is in crisis, and the liberals are looting America's future to pay off their special interests. This is corruption of the highest order. E-mail and call your representative and two senators today!
Take Action!
Send an e-mail and call your representative and two senators today! Tell them to remove the language discriminating against people of faith. In addition, please take the time to call your representative and two senators. The phone number where you can reach both your representative and two senators is 202-224-3121.
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 ChairmanAmerican Family Association
Donate with confidence to AFA
(gifts are tax-deductible)
Please take a few minutes and invite your friends to AFA ActionAlert.
It's Not Gay The sanitized version of homosexuality being presented is not the whole truth.
AFA Receives High Marks Please read this information before you decide to give a financial gift to American Family Association.
Spiritual Heritage Tours Join Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders for a tour of our nation's capital with a focus on the deep Christian heritage of our country.
In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence.
You are subscribed as marcel_terrazas@yahoo.com. Unsubscribe Update E-mail Address
If you are a Federal Civilian, Postal or Military Employee, please consider AFA (#12037) for your annual CFC participation.
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 Copyright ©2009 All Rights Reserved
Monday, February 9, 2009
Fairness Doctrine
NASHVILLE - Christian broadcasters have vowed to keep preaching the gospel regardless of social, political, or regulatory opposition.
At the first convention of the National Religious Broadcasters since the November election, NRB president Frank Wright said, "The proclamation of the gospel is now opposed at every quarter. In the political arena, in the cultural context, in forces of the regulatory arena and the legislative environment -- all these forces today seem to be arrayed against the gospel."
But Dr. Wright said the NRB board has issued a declaration pledging to "obey the command of Christ to preach the gospel, even if human governments and institutions attempt to oppose, constrain, or prohibit it."
Christian broadcasters have expressed concern that a revived "Fairness Doctrine" might force them to air anti-Christian responses to their programs. They also worry that proposed hate crimes laws -- such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- could be used against stations whose broadcasts say Jesus is the only way to God or that homosexuality is sinful.
Before the November elections, Wright expressed doubt that Congress would revive the Fairness Doctrine. But he warned that it could happen if Democrats won both the White House and solid majorities in both houses of Congress. That is indeed what has happened.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=414166
At the first convention of the National Religious Broadcasters since the November election, NRB president Frank Wright said, "The proclamation of the gospel is now opposed at every quarter. In the political arena, in the cultural context, in forces of the regulatory arena and the legislative environment -- all these forces today seem to be arrayed against the gospel."
But Dr. Wright said the NRB board has issued a declaration pledging to "obey the command of Christ to preach the gospel, even if human governments and institutions attempt to oppose, constrain, or prohibit it."
Christian broadcasters have expressed concern that a revived "Fairness Doctrine" might force them to air anti-Christian responses to their programs. They also worry that proposed hate crimes laws -- such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- could be used against stations whose broadcasts say Jesus is the only way to God or that homosexuality is sinful.
Before the November elections, Wright expressed doubt that Congress would revive the Fairness Doctrine. But he warned that it could happen if Democrats won both the White House and solid majorities in both houses of Congress. That is indeed what has happened.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=414166
Friday, February 6, 2009
9th Circuit rulings touch on DOMA's constitutionality
Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 2/6/2009 11:30:00 AM
var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';
Two administrative judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California have ruled the U.S. government must pay health benefits to the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers -- one of whom is on the 9th Circuit's staff.
In one of the rulings, Judge Stephen Reinhardt stated that the government's refusal to grant those benefits amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Neither a "distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage" justifies denial of federal benefits, Reinhardt stated. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued the ruling in the other case. According to Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), there is another interesting part of the rulings. "The 9th Circuit judges in that administrative matter ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] was unconstitutional and that it had no rational basis," he explains. Dacus suggests that is not a role for federal judges because it usurps authority of another branch of government. "Unfortunately the 9th Circuit has refused to respect the legislative branch and its authority to decide how benefits are to be given and appropriated," says the PJI president. The ruling only impacts the two federal employees involved in the administrative action, and likely will be appealed. But it does fit into President Obama's plan for DOMA, says Dacus. "This action by these two 9th Circuit justices will only give greater momentum to efforts on Capitol Hill to reverse DOMA and to start requiring federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize homosexual relationships," he laments. Indeed, an attorney with Lambda Legal -- a pro-homosexual legal group -- told the Daily Journal in California that the judges' orders will become part of her group's "national conversation" on behalf of same-sex couples.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=411754
var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';
Two administrative judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California have ruled the U.S. government must pay health benefits to the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers -- one of whom is on the 9th Circuit's staff.
In one of the rulings, Judge Stephen Reinhardt stated that the government's refusal to grant those benefits amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Neither a "distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage" justifies denial of federal benefits, Reinhardt stated. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued the ruling in the other case. According to Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), there is another interesting part of the rulings. "The 9th Circuit judges in that administrative matter ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] was unconstitutional and that it had no rational basis," he explains. Dacus suggests that is not a role for federal judges because it usurps authority of another branch of government. "Unfortunately the 9th Circuit has refused to respect the legislative branch and its authority to decide how benefits are to be given and appropriated," says the PJI president. The ruling only impacts the two federal employees involved in the administrative action, and likely will be appealed. But it does fit into President Obama's plan for DOMA, says Dacus. "This action by these two 9th Circuit justices will only give greater momentum to efforts on Capitol Hill to reverse DOMA and to start requiring federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize homosexual relationships," he laments. Indeed, an attorney with Lambda Legal -- a pro-homosexual legal group -- told the Daily Journal in California that the judges' orders will become part of her group's "national conversation" on behalf of same-sex couples.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=411754
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Abortion machine lining up for "stimulus" funds
From the Desk of:
Mat Staver
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are rushing to push through
a massive "stimulus" bill that will expand government's power over our
lives.
Different versions of this bill have included hundreds of millions of
dollars for so-called "family planning." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
is even defending such anti-family policies as an economic stimulus!
I want to send a strong message immediately to members
of Congress that adding hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the
abortion machine in the so-called "stimulus" is horribly wrong!
Here's what I'm asking you to do:
sign our petition opposing the radical abortion agenda being pushed by President Obama and the liberal Congress.
We have already gathered over 65,000 petitions -- far
exceeding our initial goal of 50,000. Please go here now to
be included in this important petition:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=16029&RID=16668985
Please note that I must have your petition by Thursday to be included in
this week's delivery.
Second, please call your two senators today and tell them what you think
about the stimulus plan. Be sure to specifically call out the proposed
funding for "family planning" as an example of the out-of-control spending
that is taking place in Washington right now.
Sen. Feinstein 202-224-3841
Sen. Boxer 202-224-3553
The Obama administration and the liberal Congress are moving faster than
anyone could have anticipated to stretch the tentacles of government
further and further into our lives.
Thank you for taking a stand to stop the funding of the abortion machine.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
P.S. Again, I must have your petition by Thursday to be included in this
week's delivery. Please go here:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=16029&RID=16668985
Mat Staver
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are rushing to push through
a massive "stimulus" bill that will expand government's power over our
lives.
Different versions of this bill have included hundreds of millions of
dollars for so-called "family planning." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
is even defending such anti-family policies as an economic stimulus!
I want to send a strong message immediately to members
of Congress that adding hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the
abortion machine in the so-called "stimulus" is horribly wrong!
Here's what I'm asking you to do:
sign our petition opposing the radical abortion agenda being pushed by President Obama and the liberal Congress.
We have already gathered over 65,000 petitions -- far
exceeding our initial goal of 50,000. Please go here now to
be included in this important petition:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=16029&RID=16668985
Please note that I must have your petition by Thursday to be included in
this week's delivery.
Second, please call your two senators today and tell them what you think
about the stimulus plan. Be sure to specifically call out the proposed
funding for "family planning" as an example of the out-of-control spending
that is taking place in Washington right now.
Sen. Feinstein 202-224-3841
Sen. Boxer 202-224-3553
The Obama administration and the liberal Congress are moving faster than
anyone could have anticipated to stretch the tentacles of government
further and further into our lives.
Thank you for taking a stand to stop the funding of the abortion machine.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
P.S. Again, I must have your petition by Thursday to be included in this
week's delivery. Please go here:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=16029&RID=16668985
Obama decisions putting America at risk
The column below by John Yoo, which appeared last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal, analyzes some of the decisions President Obama made in his first week as commander-in-chief.
Taken together, these decisions, as Yoo notes, “will seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks.”
For instance, interrogators of terrorist suspects will be so restrained in their tactics that they won’t even be able to use “good cop/bad cop” techniques commonly used by police officers. In other words, interrogation tactics which have been legally used on our own citizens are, in Obama’s new world order of fighting terrorism, too extreme to be used on terrorist suspects.
This absurdity would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
For the past few years Democrats assailed President Bush’s foreign policies, arguing that they made us “less safe.” Whatever one thinks of those policies, one incontrovertible fact remains: No terrorist attack was successfully executed in America on the President’s watch after 9/11.
According to intelligence experts one reason is the coercive interrogation techniques used to extract information from terrorist suspects and enemy combatants. With those now effectively jettisoned from our arsenal of self-defense, President Obama has put the nation at greater risk.
Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo
The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.
By JOHN YOO
During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure ofGuantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.
While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.
What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaedaleaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)
Mr. Obama has also ordered that all military commission trials be stayed and that the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, the only al Qaeda operative now held on U.S. soil, be reviewed. This seems a prelude to closing the military commissions down entirely and transferring the detainees' cases to U.S. civilian courts for prosecution under ordinary criminal law. Military commission trials have been used in most American wars, and their rules and procedures are designed around the need to protect intelligence sources and methods from revelation in open court.
It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.
The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up. The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.
Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us. If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands. He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.
It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.
Government policy choices are all about trade-offs, which cannot simply be wished away by rhetoric. Mr. Obama seems to have respected these realities in his hesitation to end the NSA's electronic surveillance programs, or to stop the use of predator drones to target individual al Qaeda leaders.
But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Taken together, these decisions, as Yoo notes, “will seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks.”
For instance, interrogators of terrorist suspects will be so restrained in their tactics that they won’t even be able to use “good cop/bad cop” techniques commonly used by police officers. In other words, interrogation tactics which have been legally used on our own citizens are, in Obama’s new world order of fighting terrorism, too extreme to be used on terrorist suspects.
This absurdity would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
For the past few years Democrats assailed President Bush’s foreign policies, arguing that they made us “less safe.” Whatever one thinks of those policies, one incontrovertible fact remains: No terrorist attack was successfully executed in America on the President’s watch after 9/11.
According to intelligence experts one reason is the coercive interrogation techniques used to extract information from terrorist suspects and enemy combatants. With those now effectively jettisoned from our arsenal of self-defense, President Obama has put the nation at greater risk.
Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo
The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.
By JOHN YOO
During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure ofGuantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.
While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war. The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.
What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaedaleaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)
Mr. Obama has also ordered that all military commission trials be stayed and that the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, the only al Qaeda operative now held on U.S. soil, be reviewed. This seems a prelude to closing the military commissions down entirely and transferring the detainees' cases to U.S. civilian courts for prosecution under ordinary criminal law. Military commission trials have been used in most American wars, and their rules and procedures are designed around the need to protect intelligence sources and methods from revelation in open court.
It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.
The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up. The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.
Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us. If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands. He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.
It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.
Government policy choices are all about trade-offs, which cannot simply be wished away by rhetoric. Mr. Obama seems to have respected these realities in his hesitation to end the NSA's electronic surveillance programs, or to stop the use of predator drones to target individual al Qaeda leaders.
But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Obama fires first salvo at conservative talk radio
Obama fires first salvo at conservative talk radio
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 1/30/2009 7:45:00 AM
A media watchdog organization says President Barack Obama has begun an assault on conservative talk radio.
The Media Research Center (MRC) reveals President Obama took a shot at conservative talk-radio king Rush Limbaugh when he warned GOP leaders last week: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
The MRC says the attack came during a meeting on Capitol Hill held to discuss the president's hefty $1 trillion stimulus package. Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the MRC, sees this as a first step in a war against conservative talk radio.
That is the case, says Graham, "whether you undercut its effectiveness by trying to tell Republican leaders not to listen to it, or whether you put people in charge of the Federal Communications Commission who start investigating what they can do to ensure some sort of a 'Fairness Doctrine,' in the old terminology."
Graham believes that could mean requiring stations to provide more local programming, which could force some conservative shows off the air. He points out they could also intimidate stations into balancing their programming by airing unsuccessful liberal talk shows.
According to the media analyst, other tactics could be employed under the Fairness Doctrine to dilute the influence of conservative radio. "We've suggested that the Fairness Doctrine is, in a sense, a recession doctrine for radio. Let's take the profitable host and right next to that show, we're going to put a show with no listeners," he explains. "Or you may end up delaying them -- so instead of having sort of that 'murderers row' [lineup] like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, you're like, 'Oh Limbaugh, then we've got to have two or three hours of liberals. Then we'll get to Hannity, and then it will be bedtime.'"
If Obama had his way, argues Graham, President Obama would have all Americans reading The New York Times and listening to Air America.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=403702
Is groundwork for 'global governance' being laid?
Is groundwork for 'global governance' being laid?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 2/3/2009 6:00:00 AM
A United Nations watchdog is concerned about the agenda of the recent World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland.
According to Cliff Kincaid, president of America's Survival, recently confirmed U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is being urged to lay the foundation for "global governance" by considering "international taxation" measures to loot more money from U.S. taxpayers.
Kincaid says the idea of a global IRS was included in the report The Global Agenda 2009, which was discussed at the recently concluded World Economic Forum in Davos.
"Most Americans have lost thousands and thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, because of the destruction of their retirement accounts and personal savings," notes Kincaid.
"And yet on top of that we've got these global players in Davos talking about global taxes? A global IRS?" he wonders. "Maybe Geithner is going to run that, too. These things are being discussed out in the open at these global meetings."
Kincaid points out that The Global Agenda 2009 report argues "sovereign states do not adequately address problems reaching across borders" and that "international taxation" may be needed to generate "the additional resources" for global governance.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=406334
Republicans as Democrats
Republicans as Democrats
Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 2/3/2009 10:45:00 AM
A brief glimmer of sanity among Congressional Republicans has been followed, almost immediately, by a return to the more traditional Washington insanity.
Last week, every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the Obama administration's "stimulus" package -- which had stimulated an orgy of runaway spending by Congressional Democrats on everything from sports arenas to sexually transmitted diseases.
This was a rare smart move by the Republicans. If the Republicans had gone along, pursuing the will o' the wisp of "bipartisanship," then if the stimulus had by some miracle succeeded, it would have been a bill for which Democrats would claim credit at the next election.
On the other hand, if the stimulus failed -- which seems far more likely -- then it would be called a "bipartisan" bill, meaning that the Democrats would pay no price at the next election for a colossal failure.
Since President Bush started the "stimulus package" game, this was also an opportunity for Congressional Republicans to cut themselves loose from the political baggage of the Bush administration's unpopularity.
Within 24 hours, however, Republicans in the Senate came out with a plan to have the government fix mortgage interest rates at four percent -- and use taxpayers' money to cover the losses that lenders would otherwise sustain.
It is painfully obvious that government intervention in the housing markets over the past several years has been at the heart of the boom and bust that has led to a huge economic downturn.
It was not the market, but the government, that pushed for abandoning traditional standards for making mortgage loans. That was what got both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb -- and set off economic shock waves when the limb broke.
The last time the Republicans pushed for price controls was during the Nixon administration. It was very popular in the short run. But, in the long run, even Nixon admitted in his memoirs that it was bad for the country.
Price controls have been tried and failed, in countries around the world, going all the way back to ancient Rome and Babylon. Moreover, politicians intervening in the economy is the hallmark of Democrats.
What principle separates the Republicans from the Democrats? If they are just Tweedledee and Tweedledum, then elections come down to personality and rhetoric. If that happens, you can bet the rent money on the Democrats winning.
Those considered to be the smart money among Republicans have been saying for some time that the party has to become more "inclusive" and jettison "outmoded" principles of the Reagan era. But no one has to pass an IQ test to be considered part of the smart money.
Looking at the track record, rather than the rhetoric, the smart money doesn't look nearly as smart.
When have the Republicans won big? When they stood for something and told the people what that something was.
Ronald Reagan was the classic example. But another example would be the stunning Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional elections, which put them in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
Articulating the message of Newt Gingrich's "contract for America" was a key to that historic victory.
Too many Republicans seem to think that being "inclusive" means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.
That is precisely what Reagan did and what Gingrich did in 1994. Most Americans' principles are closer to those of the Republicans than to those of the Democrats.
It is the only advantage the Republicans have. The Democrats have the media, the unions, the environmental extremists and the tort lawyers on their side. Why should Republicans throw away their one advantage by becoming imitation Democrats?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=406424
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
