Saturday, July 3, 2010
If you haven't read any of the articles, YOU REALLY NEED to READ this one. 545 VS 300 MILLION
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be - please read it!!
The article below is completely neutral, ..not anti republican or democrat.
Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgements made that impact each one of us every day.
It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.... . The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace
545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid...
Put these words Upon his tomb, Taxes drove me to my doom....'When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax..
Sales Tax
School Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Excise Taxes
Property Tax
Cigarette Tax
Medicare Tax
Inventory Tax
Real Estate Tax
Well Permit Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Inheritance Tax
Road Usage Tax
CDL license Tax
Dog License Tax
State Income Tax
Food License Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Social Security Tax
Service Charge Tax
Fishing License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Building Permit Tax
IRS Interest Charges
Hunting License Tax
Marriage License Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Property Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Unemployment Tax (UTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (UTA)
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians? 'I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!
YOU can help it get there!!!
The article below is completely neutral, ..not anti republican or democrat.
Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgements made that impact each one of us every day.
It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.... . The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace
545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid...
Put these words Upon his tomb, Taxes drove me to my doom....'When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax..
Sales Tax
School Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Excise Taxes
Property Tax
Cigarette Tax
Medicare Tax
Inventory Tax
Real Estate Tax
Well Permit Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Inheritance Tax
Road Usage Tax
CDL license Tax
Dog License Tax
State Income Tax
Food License Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Social Security Tax
Service Charge Tax
Fishing License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Building Permit Tax
IRS Interest Charges
Hunting License Tax
Marriage License Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Property Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Unemployment Tax (UTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (UTA)
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians? 'I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!
YOU can help it get there!!!
PSALM 4
PSALM 4
To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm of David.
1 Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress; have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer.
2 O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah.
3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
4 Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.
6 There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.
7 Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.
8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm of David.
1 Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress; have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer.
2 O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah.
3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
4 Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.
6 There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.
7 Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.
8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
Friday, July 2, 2010
FROM ONE NEWS NOW/AFA
Can there be a Christian nation?
Dr. Michael Youssef - Guest Columnist - 7/2/2010 7:35:00 AM
Recently I was challenged by a dear friend who questioned my use of the phrase "Christian nation." His question was: "How can you say America is a Christian Nation? How can a country be Christian?"
In many ways, he's right. A country, or even a culture, cannot be Christian — only individuals can be Christians. However, when people speak of America's Christian heritage, they often are referring to the moral character of our nation which is reflected in its laws and ordinances — both of which bear the distinct markings of Christianity.
Make no mistake about it: the moral character of a nation, as expressed in its policies and laws, can evoke God's response. I don't mean that our heavenly Father would send fire and brimstone from heaven in response to a nation that embraces ungodly laws and policies. But He can and will withdraw His protection from a people who once declared Him as their Lord and then become rebellious and an immoral affront to Him.
After September 11, our nation appeared to go through a soul-searching process. People began to ask, "Are we protected by God anymore?" And superficially, the nation appeared to enter into a spiritual revival. Even members of Congress from both parties stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang "God Bless America." But that repentance was cheap and short-lived. It was merely a reaction emanating from fear. In other words, the "revival" was birthed from fear of the unknown and worry that our country was no longer safe.
We read in Scripture how many times Israel went through the motions of repentance and renewal — mostly in times of crisis — only to discover the shallowness of their commitment to obeying and submitting to God. The temporary filling of church pews after September 11 was no different.
Let me be absolutely clear, America is not "the new Israel," but the lessons we learn from Israel of old can be of immense importance today. Many pastors in pulpits across the United States are declaring that we are now entering another cycle of God's patient attempts to get our nation's attention. We are being made aware once again of His desire for this generation of Americans to return to Him and to the faith of our Founding Fathers.
As believers, we should know and believe deeply that God desires for our leaders and judges to repent for shedding the blood of the unborn. A loving heavenly Father is waiting for them to repent for approving and sanctioning sins that are abominations to Him. God desires for His children to repent from the spirit of materialism and placing our hope in possessions.
The Lord's desire for His people is to stop serving Him in a half-hearted manner. He longs for His people to thirst and hunger for righteousness and not for ease and comfort. God continuously calls us to Himself.
Knowing all of this, I felt compelled to call at least 100,000 faithful believers whose knees have not bowed to the Baal of secular humanism to join with me in praying daily for our nation from July 4 through November 2. Our economic woes and national disasters, as well as our nation's security, will only be healed and protected when we get our relationship with God on the right track. Our personal cleansing, repentance, and intercession can determine our country's future.
Remember this: our real enemy is not some faction of our fellow citizens. Our real war will not be waged in the physical realm. Our battle must be fought on our knees in prayer. So if you have not committed to pray for America, please go to GodSaveOurCountry.com and join with thousands of others who are interceding on behalf of this great nation.
Dr. Michael Youssef - Guest Columnist - 7/2/2010 7:35:00 AM
Recently I was challenged by a dear friend who questioned my use of the phrase "Christian nation." His question was: "How can you say America is a Christian Nation? How can a country be Christian?"
In many ways, he's right. A country, or even a culture, cannot be Christian — only individuals can be Christians. However, when people speak of America's Christian heritage, they often are referring to the moral character of our nation which is reflected in its laws and ordinances — both of which bear the distinct markings of Christianity.
Make no mistake about it: the moral character of a nation, as expressed in its policies and laws, can evoke God's response. I don't mean that our heavenly Father would send fire and brimstone from heaven in response to a nation that embraces ungodly laws and policies. But He can and will withdraw His protection from a people who once declared Him as their Lord and then become rebellious and an immoral affront to Him.
After September 11, our nation appeared to go through a soul-searching process. People began to ask, "Are we protected by God anymore?" And superficially, the nation appeared to enter into a spiritual revival. Even members of Congress from both parties stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang "God Bless America." But that repentance was cheap and short-lived. It was merely a reaction emanating from fear. In other words, the "revival" was birthed from fear of the unknown and worry that our country was no longer safe.
We read in Scripture how many times Israel went through the motions of repentance and renewal — mostly in times of crisis — only to discover the shallowness of their commitment to obeying and submitting to God. The temporary filling of church pews after September 11 was no different.
Let me be absolutely clear, America is not "the new Israel," but the lessons we learn from Israel of old can be of immense importance today. Many pastors in pulpits across the United States are declaring that we are now entering another cycle of God's patient attempts to get our nation's attention. We are being made aware once again of His desire for this generation of Americans to return to Him and to the faith of our Founding Fathers.
As believers, we should know and believe deeply that God desires for our leaders and judges to repent for shedding the blood of the unborn. A loving heavenly Father is waiting for them to repent for approving and sanctioning sins that are abominations to Him. God desires for His children to repent from the spirit of materialism and placing our hope in possessions.
The Lord's desire for His people is to stop serving Him in a half-hearted manner. He longs for His people to thirst and hunger for righteousness and not for ease and comfort. God continuously calls us to Himself.
Knowing all of this, I felt compelled to call at least 100,000 faithful believers whose knees have not bowed to the Baal of secular humanism to join with me in praying daily for our nation from July 4 through November 2. Our economic woes and national disasters, as well as our nation's security, will only be healed and protected when we get our relationship with God on the right track. Our personal cleansing, repentance, and intercession can determine our country's future.
Remember this: our real enemy is not some faction of our fellow citizens. Our real war will not be waged in the physical realm. Our battle must be fought on our knees in prayer. So if you have not committed to pray for America, please go to GodSaveOurCountry.com and join with thousands of others who are interceding on behalf of this great nation.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Obama says politics to blame for immigration delay
DARLENE SUPERVILLE - Associated Press Writer - 7/1/2010 4:50:00 PMWASHINGTON -- Hoping to breathe new life into the stalled immigration effort, President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the delay on recalcitrant Republicans whom he said had given in to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
Republicans responded that Obama's first step going forward must be to secure the border.
In his first immigration speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who had backed attempts during the previous Republican administration to tighten the immigration system. He did not call out anyone by name.
Obama dismissed the focus on a "border security first" approach, saying the system is too big to be fixed "only with fences and border patrols." He advocated a comprehensive approach that would call on the government, businesses and illegal immigrants themselves to live up to their responsibilities within the law.
Obama also wants to create a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S; critics call it amnesty. But Obama said the immigrants must first acknowledge that they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes, perform community service and learn English.
Without setting a timeline, Obama questioned whether the political will exists to get a bill through Congress.
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality." In the Senate, Democrats fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP delaying tactics.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Obama would get the bipartisan support he wants "if he would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is in a tight re-election race and could benefit politically from enacting a broad overhaul, said he was committed to passing a bill this year.
Many immigrant advocates praised the president's comments. They had been pressing him for some time to give such as a speech _ although it broke no new ground _ as a demonstration of his commitment to an issue he promised would be a priority his first year in office.
But an organization of Hispanic conservatives criticized the speech as a "sheer political move" to keep them on board for the November elections. Obama was elected with strong backing from Hispanics and they could tip the balance in several tight races this year.
"President Obama is operating under the false assumption that Latinos are natural-born Democrats who will rally behind his policies in lockstep," said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. "Latinos must not let themselves be deceived by the soaring rhetoric that has replaced meaningful action on immigration."
In Arizona, which is weeks away from enacting a controversial anti-immigrant law that Obama has called "misguided," Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh said he was offended by the president's speech and comments about the new state law.
In the speech, Obama said the law is an understandable expression of the public's frustration with the government's failure to overhaul the immigration system, but it also is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local police departments.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to ask about a person's immigration status if there is reason to believe they're in the country illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
Even before Obama spoke, the path toward getting an immigration bill through Congress was uncertain and it remained so afterward.
"It's really going to be up now to Capitol Hill to answer what has been his very clear call for action," said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
DARLENE SUPERVILLE - Associated Press Writer - 7/1/2010 4:50:00 PMWASHINGTON -- Hoping to breathe new life into the stalled immigration effort, President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the delay on recalcitrant Republicans whom he said had given in to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
Republicans responded that Obama's first step going forward must be to secure the border.
In his first immigration speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who had backed attempts during the previous Republican administration to tighten the immigration system. He did not call out anyone by name.
Obama dismissed the focus on a "border security first" approach, saying the system is too big to be fixed "only with fences and border patrols." He advocated a comprehensive approach that would call on the government, businesses and illegal immigrants themselves to live up to their responsibilities within the law.
Obama also wants to create a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S; critics call it amnesty. But Obama said the immigrants must first acknowledge that they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes, perform community service and learn English.
Without setting a timeline, Obama questioned whether the political will exists to get a bill through Congress.
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality." In the Senate, Democrats fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP delaying tactics.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Obama would get the bipartisan support he wants "if he would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is in a tight re-election race and could benefit politically from enacting a broad overhaul, said he was committed to passing a bill this year.
Many immigrant advocates praised the president's comments. They had been pressing him for some time to give such as a speech _ although it broke no new ground _ as a demonstration of his commitment to an issue he promised would be a priority his first year in office.
But an organization of Hispanic conservatives criticized the speech as a "sheer political move" to keep them on board for the November elections. Obama was elected with strong backing from Hispanics and they could tip the balance in several tight races this year.
"President Obama is operating under the false assumption that Latinos are natural-born Democrats who will rally behind his policies in lockstep," said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. "Latinos must not let themselves be deceived by the soaring rhetoric that has replaced meaningful action on immigration."
In Arizona, which is weeks away from enacting a controversial anti-immigrant law that Obama has called "misguided," Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh said he was offended by the president's speech and comments about the new state law.
In the speech, Obama said the law is an understandable expression of the public's frustration with the government's failure to overhaul the immigration system, but it also is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local police departments.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to ask about a person's immigration status if there is reason to believe they're in the country illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
Even before Obama spoke, the path toward getting an immigration bill through Congress was uncertain and it remained so afterward.
"It's really going to be up now to Capitol Hill to answer what has been his very clear call for action," said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Isaiah 65:17-25
065:017 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
065:018 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
065:019 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
065:020 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
065:021 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
065:022 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
065:023 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
065:024 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
065:025 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
065:018 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
065:019 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
065:020 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
065:021 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
065:022 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
065:023 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
065:024 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
065:025 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
FROM ISREAL TODAY
EU: Enforcing the law against Arabs thwarts peace
The European Union on Wednesday declared that the Jerusalem Municipality's plan to demolish 22 Arab homes built illegally on state-owned land is a serious obstacle to peace.
Catherine Ashton, chief of EU foreign affairs, reminded Israel in remarks to reporters that Europe has never recognized Israel's sovereignty over the eastern half of Jerusalem, and therefore considers it illegal for Israel to enforce its laws there.
Ashton was referring to municipal plans for the neighborhood of Silwan, which lies just south of Jerusalem's Old City. Silwan is today an Arab-dominated neighborhood. But in ancient times it comprised the entirety of Jerusalem, and is known to Jews as the "City of David." Up until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s, there was a sizable Jewish community in Silwan.
The southern part of Silwan is known as King's Garden. During Ottoman and later British rule of Jerusalem, King's Garden was state-owned land that was purposely preserved as a green area. Over the past decade, however, local Arabs have taken over the area and illegally constructed some 90 homes.
The Jerusalem Municipality has agreed to retroactively approve two-thirds of the illegal homes, but insists the rest of the area must revert to its original state - a public green area that will include an archeological park.
Ashton was adamant that the plan is "illegal under international law" and "threatens to make the two-state solution impossible."
Her understanding of international law appeared to be flawed. The entirety of Jerusalem was legally deeded to a future Jewish state when the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, ratified the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. That was the last legally-binding international decision produced regarding control of Jerusalem.
The 1947 UN Partition Plan that would have divided control of Jerusalem and the rest of Israel never made it beyond being a General Assembly recommendation filed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. As such, Israeli control of eastern Jerusalem can be disputed, but not characterized as illegal.
The European Union on Wednesday declared that the Jerusalem Municipality's plan to demolish 22 Arab homes built illegally on state-owned land is a serious obstacle to peace.
Catherine Ashton, chief of EU foreign affairs, reminded Israel in remarks to reporters that Europe has never recognized Israel's sovereignty over the eastern half of Jerusalem, and therefore considers it illegal for Israel to enforce its laws there.
Ashton was referring to municipal plans for the neighborhood of Silwan, which lies just south of Jerusalem's Old City. Silwan is today an Arab-dominated neighborhood. But in ancient times it comprised the entirety of Jerusalem, and is known to Jews as the "City of David." Up until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s, there was a sizable Jewish community in Silwan.
The southern part of Silwan is known as King's Garden. During Ottoman and later British rule of Jerusalem, King's Garden was state-owned land that was purposely preserved as a green area. Over the past decade, however, local Arabs have taken over the area and illegally constructed some 90 homes.
The Jerusalem Municipality has agreed to retroactively approve two-thirds of the illegal homes, but insists the rest of the area must revert to its original state - a public green area that will include an archeological park.
Ashton was adamant that the plan is "illegal under international law" and "threatens to make the two-state solution impossible."
Her understanding of international law appeared to be flawed. The entirety of Jerusalem was legally deeded to a future Jewish state when the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, ratified the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. That was the last legally-binding international decision produced regarding control of Jerusalem.
The 1947 UN Partition Plan that would have divided control of Jerusalem and the rest of Israel never made it beyond being a General Assembly recommendation filed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. As such, Israeli control of eastern Jerusalem can be disputed, but not characterized as illegal.
FROM ISREAL TODAY
'Son of Hamas' wins asylum in US
Mosab Yousef, the son of one of Hamas' founders and a former undercover spy for Israel, has been granted asylum in the US after successfully battling a Department of Homeland Security effort to deport him.
From 1997 to 2007, Yousef aided Israel's security forces after becoming disillusioned with the brutality and hatred of Hamas and other terror groups. Several senior Israeli security officials said Yousef was by far the most valuable informant Israel ever had in its battle against Palestinian terrorism.
Shortly after he began helping Israel, Yousef secretly converted to Christianity. Just recently he published his book, "Son of Hamas," which details his spiritual journey as well as his activities on Israel's behalf.
It was the details of that book that Homeland Security officials used as evidence when they claimed that Yousef was a national security threat and should be sent back to the so-called "West Bank." Yousef insisted that he was no terrorist, and argued that being deported would be a death sentence, as Hamas would like nothing better than to kill such a traitor to its cause.
Yousef's former handlers in the Israel Security Agency broke with protocol and flew to the US to testify on his behalf. Whether because of their testimony or for some other reason, Homeland Security officials announced in court on Wednesday that they were dropping all objections to asylum. The judge ruled that Yousef would be officially granted asylum following a routine background check.
Yousef's case had sparked much interest in Israel, where he was responsible for saving the lives of perhaps hundreds and even thousands of Israelis. Many saw the effort to deport Yousef as a two-faced move by the Obama Administration, which claims to be fighting terrorism, but at the same time tip-toes around groups like Hamas and their Palestinian supporters.
Mosab Yousef, the son of one of Hamas' founders and a former undercover spy for Israel, has been granted asylum in the US after successfully battling a Department of Homeland Security effort to deport him.
From 1997 to 2007, Yousef aided Israel's security forces after becoming disillusioned with the brutality and hatred of Hamas and other terror groups. Several senior Israeli security officials said Yousef was by far the most valuable informant Israel ever had in its battle against Palestinian terrorism.
Shortly after he began helping Israel, Yousef secretly converted to Christianity. Just recently he published his book, "Son of Hamas," which details his spiritual journey as well as his activities on Israel's behalf.
It was the details of that book that Homeland Security officials used as evidence when they claimed that Yousef was a national security threat and should be sent back to the so-called "West Bank." Yousef insisted that he was no terrorist, and argued that being deported would be a death sentence, as Hamas would like nothing better than to kill such a traitor to its cause.
Yousef's former handlers in the Israel Security Agency broke with protocol and flew to the US to testify on his behalf. Whether because of their testimony or for some other reason, Homeland Security officials announced in court on Wednesday that they were dropping all objections to asylum. The judge ruled that Yousef would be officially granted asylum following a routine background check.
Yousef's case had sparked much interest in Israel, where he was responsible for saving the lives of perhaps hundreds and even thousands of Israelis. Many saw the effort to deport Yousef as a two-faced move by the Obama Administration, which claims to be fighting terrorism, but at the same time tip-toes around groups like Hamas and their Palestinian supporters.
AUL
Dear Defender of Life,
Thank you.
Today, I have the remarkable opportunity to represent the pro-life movement by testifying before Congress during the Kagan confirmation hearings. If you have the opportunity to tune-in to the hearings on television later this afternoon, I encourage you to do so.
I wanted to take a moment to thank you because, without your steadfast support, this invaluable opportunity would not have been possible.
Our fundraising deadline has now passed-and due to the outpouring of support from people like you, we not only reached our goal, we slightly surpassed it!
In this difficult economy, when so many businesses and organizations are failing, this is an amazing achievement. I know that many of you made significant personal sacrifices to fund our mission of protecting the rights of the unborn- and for that, we cannot thank you enough.
As I watch the U.S. Senate consider the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, I am reminded that the enemies of life will never rest, but will continue to forcefully pursue the expansion of abortion rights at every opportunity. But we will continue to oppose them, knowing that our supporters are equally motivated and are ready and willing to be voices for those who have none.
We have asked so much of you recently, and we are so grateful for your generosity. I'm proud to say that our work to defend life will continue thanks to your partnership.
Each day, our cause grows stronger with your continued help. Thank you once again for your support of AUL.
Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life
Thank you.
Today, I have the remarkable opportunity to represent the pro-life movement by testifying before Congress during the Kagan confirmation hearings. If you have the opportunity to tune-in to the hearings on television later this afternoon, I encourage you to do so.
I wanted to take a moment to thank you because, without your steadfast support, this invaluable opportunity would not have been possible.
Our fundraising deadline has now passed-and due to the outpouring of support from people like you, we not only reached our goal, we slightly surpassed it!
In this difficult economy, when so many businesses and organizations are failing, this is an amazing achievement. I know that many of you made significant personal sacrifices to fund our mission of protecting the rights of the unborn- and for that, we cannot thank you enough.
As I watch the U.S. Senate consider the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, I am reminded that the enemies of life will never rest, but will continue to forcefully pursue the expansion of abortion rights at every opportunity. But we will continue to oppose them, knowing that our supporters are equally motivated and are ready and willing to be voices for those who have none.
We have asked so much of you recently, and we are so grateful for your generosity. I'm proud to say that our work to defend life will continue thanks to your partnership.
Each day, our cause grows stronger with your continued help. Thank you once again for your support of AUL.
Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life
AUL - about Kagen
CALL YOUR SENATOR, URGE INVESTIGATION
Dear Friend of Life,
There is a startling new development in the Kagan nomination. We now know that Elena Kagan appeared willing to lobby not one, but two medical organizations.
During her time in the Clinton Administration, Elena Kagan urged the President to oppose any meaningful restrictions on partial-birth abortion. She told President Clinton at the time that any real limitations on abortion were “unconstitutional.” In addition, it now appears that Kagan pushed her agenda one step further by lobbying two major medical organizations to publicly change their positions on partial-birth abortion.
In a June 15th legal memo from our sister organization, Americans United for Life, AUL attorneys raised additional concerns about Kagan’s apparent lobbying efforts to change the position of a major medical group – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) – on partial birth abortion.
When Kagan found out in December 1996 that ACOG was considering a statement that its experts "could identify no circumstances under which the [partial-birth] procedure... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman," Kagan wrote a memo stating that this “of course would be [a] disaster.”
In other words, Elena Kagan knew that if ACOG’s scientific opinion became public, her argument that partial-birth abortion is necessary would be completely discredited.
Kagan intervened and drafted language to alter ACOG’s position.
Yesterday, Kagan was questioned about this by several Senators and admitted that the new language was in her handwriting.
“I'm really stunned by what appears to be a real politicization of science,” Senator Orrin Hatch said yesterday. “The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry they had concluded.”
Kagan told Senator Hatch that “….there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views on the question.”
Evidence released yesterday by Americans United for Life attorneys, however, reveals that Kagan may have lobbied the American Medical Association (AMA) to change its position as well.
Kagan was concerned about an AMA policy that that there is no identified situation in which a partial-birth abortion is medically necessary. She acknowledged in an email recovered from the Clinton Library files that she was in a meeting “on whether the AMA policy can be reversed at its convention on June 23.” She stated that “We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS) could contribute to that effort.”
This cryptic and troubling email demands further explanation.
Kagan was so opposed to the passage of a ban on partial-birth abortion, she hoped that ACOG and the AMA would suppress or modify their views and, written evidence suggests, may have worked behind the scenes to make that happen.
Evidence from Kagan’s time in the White House indicates that she may have been more involved in lobbying medical groups on partial-birth abortion than she admitted yesterday under oath.
Kagan’s possible lobbying of medical organizations on its own is troubling, but the effect of this successful effort is even more startling.
Later, a federal judge in Nebraska relied on the ACOG policy statement to strike down the federal prohibition of partial-birth abortion. Shannen Coffin, a then-Justice Department attorney defending the federal ban related how the judge emphasized the “integrity of the process that led to” the statement, writing that, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations . . . concerning the topics addressed.” Coffin recounted that, “Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.”
Dr. Yoest is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and will raise this all-important issue.
ACTION ALERT: Americans United for Life Action is calling for an immediate Senate investigation into the discrepancy between Kagan’s current characterization and what the written evidence indicates. All outstanding questions must be answered. The American people deserve to have all of the facts before their representatives consider a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court.
Please CLICK HERE to contact your Senator immediately to call for an urgent Senate investigation.
Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life Action
Dear Friend of Life,
There is a startling new development in the Kagan nomination. We now know that Elena Kagan appeared willing to lobby not one, but two medical organizations.
During her time in the Clinton Administration, Elena Kagan urged the President to oppose any meaningful restrictions on partial-birth abortion. She told President Clinton at the time that any real limitations on abortion were “unconstitutional.” In addition, it now appears that Kagan pushed her agenda one step further by lobbying two major medical organizations to publicly change their positions on partial-birth abortion.
In a June 15th legal memo from our sister organization, Americans United for Life, AUL attorneys raised additional concerns about Kagan’s apparent lobbying efforts to change the position of a major medical group – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) – on partial birth abortion.
When Kagan found out in December 1996 that ACOG was considering a statement that its experts "could identify no circumstances under which the [partial-birth] procedure... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman," Kagan wrote a memo stating that this “of course would be [a] disaster.”
In other words, Elena Kagan knew that if ACOG’s scientific opinion became public, her argument that partial-birth abortion is necessary would be completely discredited.
Kagan intervened and drafted language to alter ACOG’s position.
Yesterday, Kagan was questioned about this by several Senators and admitted that the new language was in her handwriting.
“I'm really stunned by what appears to be a real politicization of science,” Senator Orrin Hatch said yesterday. “The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry they had concluded.”
Kagan told Senator Hatch that “….there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views on the question.”
Evidence released yesterday by Americans United for Life attorneys, however, reveals that Kagan may have lobbied the American Medical Association (AMA) to change its position as well.
Kagan was concerned about an AMA policy that that there is no identified situation in which a partial-birth abortion is medically necessary. She acknowledged in an email recovered from the Clinton Library files that she was in a meeting “on whether the AMA policy can be reversed at its convention on June 23.” She stated that “We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS) could contribute to that effort.”
This cryptic and troubling email demands further explanation.
Kagan was so opposed to the passage of a ban on partial-birth abortion, she hoped that ACOG and the AMA would suppress or modify their views and, written evidence suggests, may have worked behind the scenes to make that happen.
Evidence from Kagan’s time in the White House indicates that she may have been more involved in lobbying medical groups on partial-birth abortion than she admitted yesterday under oath.
Kagan’s possible lobbying of medical organizations on its own is troubling, but the effect of this successful effort is even more startling.
Later, a federal judge in Nebraska relied on the ACOG policy statement to strike down the federal prohibition of partial-birth abortion. Shannen Coffin, a then-Justice Department attorney defending the federal ban related how the judge emphasized the “integrity of the process that led to” the statement, writing that, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations . . . concerning the topics addressed.” Coffin recounted that, “Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.”
Dr. Yoest is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and will raise this all-important issue.
ACTION ALERT: Americans United for Life Action is calling for an immediate Senate investigation into the discrepancy between Kagan’s current characterization and what the written evidence indicates. All outstanding questions must be answered. The American people deserve to have all of the facts before their representatives consider a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court.
Please CLICK HERE to contact your Senator immediately to call for an urgent Senate investigation.
Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life Action
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
