On December 18,2004 I posted about Christians who were arrested on October 10 for praying, singing, and reading scripture during an annual 'gay pride' event known as 'Outfest' in Philadelphia. The members of the group were charged with three felony (criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot) and five misdemeanor charges.
According to a letter I received from the American Family Association, "they are part of Repent America. Along with founder Michael Marcavage, members of Repent America—with police approval--were preaching near Outfest, a homosexual event, handing out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.
When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians’ movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians' messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching."
UPDATE
TUPELO, Mi., January 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A source from the U.S. Justice Department reported to WorldNetDaily that homosexual attorneys from the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division attended a homosexual event called "OutFest" in Philadelphia last October and advised police who arrested 11 Christians at the event.
After a judge saw video footage of four of the Christians quoting Bible verses, they were bound for trial and now face up to 47 years in prison. They were charged with three felony (criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot) and five misdemeanor charges while the city of Philadelphia has labeled the Bible as hate speech.
According to the WorldNetDaily report, the DOJ attorneys may have recommended to police that the Christians be charged with "ethnic intimidation" under Pennsylvania's new "hate crimes" law. The DOJ employee who spoke to WorldNetDaily on condition of anonymity says that, due to the homosexual U.S. attorneys' involvement, it is unlikely the DOJ will take up the cause of those now facing criminal charges.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, defends the arrested Christians and says the report of DOJ attorneys' involvement on the scene should trouble all who are following the case.
"This case is historic for all the wrong reasons, and now it turns out that Department of Justice attorneys attended 'Outfest' and may have advised the city on what charges to bring," Fahling said. "I am stunned."
"It has been made abundantly clear that my clients will never get justice from Philadelphia, and now it looks like they won't get it out of Washington, D.C. either. This is not an erosion of our rights under the Constitution; it is an earthquake that has swallowed them whole."
Fahling is asking the DOJ to open a criminal probe into the case.
"I believe the only way to overcome that possible bias is to get a public outcry on such a scale that it cannot be ignored by those higher up in the Department," Fahling said."
A petition to the DOJ is available at LINK
World Net Daily posts an article written by David Kupelian regarding the so called separation of church and state, the congressional record regarding the phrasing and intended interpretation of the "Establishment clause" as well as the "Free Exercise clause".
LINK
Saturday, January 08, 2005
National Day of Prayer for Michael Newdow
Chris has a good idea for Christians to pray for Michael Newdow on the day the Inaugural Prayer Censorship Case is to be heard. If you haven't already read his post, I encourage you to do so.Pattishub: "I urge my fellow Christians to do the same. In fact, the Inauguration Prayer Censorship Case is currently scheduled for January 14. I think praying Christians across the nation should make that day a National Day of Prayer for Michael Newdow."
Friday, January 07, 2005
Baghdad Poll from Iraq The Model
"Saturday, January 08, 2005
A translated report about an election poll from Al-sabah.
Thanks to Ladybird for the translation.
Actually I've heard about this poll few days ago but couldn't have the time to translate it.
The headlines of this poll were:
1-The poll was of 4974 Iraqis living in and around Baghdad.
2-Will the security problems cause you to?
Not come out and vote the day of elections = 18.3%
Come out and vote the day of elections = 78.3%
No opinion = 3.4%
3-Do you support military action against the terrorists?Yes = 87.7 %No = 11.1%
Don’t Know = 1.2%
If these were the results that appeared after taking samples from in and around Baghdad which is considered to be the most dangerous area in the country (and inhabited by lots of Sunni Iraqis by the way!), then what would the results look like if the samples were taken from Basra or Erbil??"
This is the latest post from Omar
A translated report about an election poll from Al-sabah.
Thanks to Ladybird for the translation.
Actually I've heard about this poll few days ago but couldn't have the time to translate it.
The headlines of this poll were:
1-The poll was of 4974 Iraqis living in and around Baghdad.
2-Will the security problems cause you to?
Not come out and vote the day of elections = 18.3%
Come out and vote the day of elections = 78.3%
No opinion = 3.4%
3-Do you support military action against the terrorists?Yes = 87.7 %No = 11.1%
Don’t Know = 1.2%
If these were the results that appeared after taking samples from in and around Baghdad which is considered to be the most dangerous area in the country (and inhabited by lots of Sunni Iraqis by the way!), then what would the results look like if the samples were taken from Basra or Erbil??"
This is the latest post from Omar
U.N. takes charge of effort to help tsunami victims / The Washington Times INSIDER
In today's Washington Times, David Sands writes in an article about the relief efforts in S. Asia:
"U.S. officials emphasized that the United States and other major donors would retain control of how their money would be spent, with the United Nations limited to a coordinating role. The Bush administration has pledged at least $350 million, a figure that does not include millions of dollars being spent each day to deploy the U.S. military on relief operations in the region.
Australia, which made the largest single pledge of more than $800 million, said yesterday it prefers to deal directly with Indonesia and other affected countries in disbursing its aid.
Mr. Powell said the United Nations would play "a lead role, but not the only lead role" in coordinating relief.
He pointedly noted that U.S. military personnel and private aid organizations have done virtually all of the relief work to date around Indonesia's Aceh province, with U.N. humanitarian organizations still struggling to establish a major presence.
He also said a regional U.S. relief center at the military base in Utapao, Thailand, will remain in operation, and may even expand cooperation with foreign military and civilian relief groups." LINK
I have been hearing news reports on TV that the UN would be organizing the relief effort in the next phase and had images of more UN corruption
misusing the billions of pledged dollars with the victims left with minimal help. The above plans indicate that I am not the only one with those concerns and am happy to see Australia and the US will continue to have a large role in the use of the donated funds.
"U.S. officials emphasized that the United States and other major donors would retain control of how their money would be spent, with the United Nations limited to a coordinating role. The Bush administration has pledged at least $350 million, a figure that does not include millions of dollars being spent each day to deploy the U.S. military on relief operations in the region.
Australia, which made the largest single pledge of more than $800 million, said yesterday it prefers to deal directly with Indonesia and other affected countries in disbursing its aid.
Mr. Powell said the United Nations would play "a lead role, but not the only lead role" in coordinating relief.
He pointedly noted that U.S. military personnel and private aid organizations have done virtually all of the relief work to date around Indonesia's Aceh province, with U.N. humanitarian organizations still struggling to establish a major presence.
He also said a regional U.S. relief center at the military base in Utapao, Thailand, will remain in operation, and may even expand cooperation with foreign military and civilian relief groups." LINK
I have been hearing news reports on TV that the UN would be organizing the relief effort in the next phase and had images of more UN corruption
misusing the billions of pledged dollars with the victims left with minimal help. The above plans indicate that I am not the only one with those concerns and am happy to see Australia and the US will continue to have a large role in the use of the donated funds.
"Where Are the Free-Speech Squealers?
Best of the Web Today - January 6, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
On Dec. 2, 2003, the Tucson Citizen published a letter to the editor that harshly criticized America's conduct of the war in Iraq. The following month, a group of local residents, offended by the letter, filed a lawsuit against the paper alleging 'intentional infliction of emotional distress.' The newspaper asked a local judge, Leslie Miller, to throw out the suit on First Amendment grounds, but she refused. Now, the Associated Press reports, the Arizona Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn Judge Miller's ruling.
OK, so here's the question: Where are all the free-speech alarmists? You remember, the folks who cried 'Censorship!' when supporters of America had the temerity to criticize the Dixie Chicks, or when Ari Fleischer suggested, in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, that people might want to choose their words carefully? Here we have a case in which a newspaper is actually getting hauled into court for publishing a critical letter to the editor, and we've heard little but silence from the free-speech crowd.
Maybe the content of the letter explains why. The AP reports the letter 'suggested American soldiers in Iraq respond to attacks on them by killing Muslims at nearby mosques.' The plaintiffs in the suit are 'fearful Tucson Muslims' who said they decided 'to keep their children home from religious schools' because they were intimidated by the letter. The judge ruled that, in her words, 'reasonable minds could differ in determining whether the publication of the letter rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.'
Well, maybe. The newspaper's editor"
By JAMES TARANTO
On Dec. 2, 2003, the Tucson Citizen published a letter to the editor that harshly criticized America's conduct of the war in Iraq. The following month, a group of local residents, offended by the letter, filed a lawsuit against the paper alleging 'intentional infliction of emotional distress.' The newspaper asked a local judge, Leslie Miller, to throw out the suit on First Amendment grounds, but she refused. Now, the Associated Press reports, the Arizona Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn Judge Miller's ruling.
OK, so here's the question: Where are all the free-speech alarmists? You remember, the folks who cried 'Censorship!' when supporters of America had the temerity to criticize the Dixie Chicks, or when Ari Fleischer suggested, in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, that people might want to choose their words carefully? Here we have a case in which a newspaper is actually getting hauled into court for publishing a critical letter to the editor, and we've heard little but silence from the free-speech crowd.
Maybe the content of the letter explains why. The AP reports the letter 'suggested American soldiers in Iraq respond to attacks on them by killing Muslims at nearby mosques.' The plaintiffs in the suit are 'fearful Tucson Muslims' who said they decided 'to keep their children home from religious schools' because they were intimidated by the letter. The judge ruled that, in her words, 'reasonable minds could differ in determining whether the publication of the letter rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.'
Well, maybe. The newspaper's editor"
2Slick's Forum
2Slick's ForumIf you have not read this hopefully 'semi' final post of a Blackhawk pilot in Iraq, I encourage you to read his post from January 1,2005. His entry. "Hang Your Head in Shame" expresses his views about the political posturing regarding America in response to the tragedy of the tsunami.
Terrorism is 'kidnapping' Islam
"Tunis, Tunisia, Jan. 6 (UPI) -- Jordanian Interior Minister Samir Habashneh has urged Arab and Muslim states to join efforts in combating terrorism, which he said is tarnishing Islam. He stressed that in order to abort the "kidnapping operation" by terrorists, Arabs and Muslims should join efforts "to restore the true image of Islam, which is that of tolerance and love." LINK
I do not know if this man has any influence to sway the opinions of leaders in the middle east, but it would be great if he does. My interaction with Muslims via blogs, has convinced me that the ordinary person of the Islamic faith is a good and decent person. It is those who are indoctrinated into the terrorists hate filled vision of imposing Sharia law on the world who are the threat. If the good people, who love their faith and humanity can regain control of Islam, this will be a safer world for people of all faiths.
I do not know if this man has any influence to sway the opinions of leaders in the middle east, but it would be great if he does. My interaction with Muslims via blogs, has convinced me that the ordinary person of the Islamic faith is a good and decent person. It is those who are indoctrinated into the terrorists hate filled vision of imposing Sharia law on the world who are the threat. If the good people, who love their faith and humanity can regain control of Islam, this will be a safer world for people of all faiths.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Inaugural Parade Controversy
"Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Defense Coalition, contends the Secret Service has 'trampled the First Amendment and crushed religious freedom in the public square.'
'Simply put, it is religious bigotry and censorship,' he said. 'It is even more troubling when one realizes that it is only Christian symbols that have been excluded from the inauguration parade.' "
A spokesman for the Secret Service explained,"The reference to the cross is strictly in regard to structure, certainly not the symbol," he said. "There is no prohibition based on content, only structure or materials that could be used in a potentially harmful or threatening manner."
The prohibition was issued in a Dec. 17 memo to the National Park Service that the Christian Defense Coalition received along with its approved demonstration permit. The Secret Service memo says, in part:
"With respect to signs and placards, the Secret Service would ask that these items be limited to items made of cardboard, poster board or cloth and have dimensions no greater than three feet in width, twenty feet in length and one-quarter inch thickness. As noted above, we are asking that supports for signs and placards be prohibited as these items may be used as a means of concealing weapons or as weapons themselves."
Additionally, the prohibition on structures includes props, folding chairs, bicycles, displays such as puppets papier mache objects, coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages and statues.
Mahoney told WND his group plans to be at the Jan. 20 event for a prayer vigil and "to challenge President Bush to remember the innocent children who have been lost through abortion and to appoint pro-life justices." LINK
As a Christian, this vigil to challenge President Bush's memory, strikes me as being inappropriate. The campaign is over, the President is well aware that he had strong support from Christians and pro-life voters. This is a ceremony to inaugurate the President, not some campaign rally. The Democrats have lost and are being made aware that Christian, pro-life views played a large role in their defeat. Do we really have to rub their noses in their loss? Have we all not been angered by the mindless criticism of Christian, pro-life people by the left? Do we really want to emulate their behavior in crying censorship and violation of individual rights?
The first amendment rights are not being trampled. This group may use crosses on placards that fit the other requirements. The Secret Service has the primary goal of assuring weapons are not hidden in some way in items carried by the people. With all the suggestions of assassination in the media, you would think that any pro Bush group would want to follow all guidelines for protecting the physical safety of the President. In reading the article, It seems to support the view that we Christians are none to bright. There is an appropriate time and place to stand up for our beliefs. This is not it.
'Simply put, it is religious bigotry and censorship,' he said. 'It is even more troubling when one realizes that it is only Christian symbols that have been excluded from the inauguration parade.' "
A spokesman for the Secret Service explained,"The reference to the cross is strictly in regard to structure, certainly not the symbol," he said. "There is no prohibition based on content, only structure or materials that could be used in a potentially harmful or threatening manner."
The prohibition was issued in a Dec. 17 memo to the National Park Service that the Christian Defense Coalition received along with its approved demonstration permit. The Secret Service memo says, in part:
"With respect to signs and placards, the Secret Service would ask that these items be limited to items made of cardboard, poster board or cloth and have dimensions no greater than three feet in width, twenty feet in length and one-quarter inch thickness. As noted above, we are asking that supports for signs and placards be prohibited as these items may be used as a means of concealing weapons or as weapons themselves."
Additionally, the prohibition on structures includes props, folding chairs, bicycles, displays such as puppets papier mache objects, coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages and statues.
Mahoney told WND his group plans to be at the Jan. 20 event for a prayer vigil and "to challenge President Bush to remember the innocent children who have been lost through abortion and to appoint pro-life justices." LINK
As a Christian, this vigil to challenge President Bush's memory, strikes me as being inappropriate. The campaign is over, the President is well aware that he had strong support from Christians and pro-life voters. This is a ceremony to inaugurate the President, not some campaign rally. The Democrats have lost and are being made aware that Christian, pro-life views played a large role in their defeat. Do we really have to rub their noses in their loss? Have we all not been angered by the mindless criticism of Christian, pro-life people by the left? Do we really want to emulate their behavior in crying censorship and violation of individual rights?
The first amendment rights are not being trampled. This group may use crosses on placards that fit the other requirements. The Secret Service has the primary goal of assuring weapons are not hidden in some way in items carried by the people. With all the suggestions of assassination in the media, you would think that any pro Bush group would want to follow all guidelines for protecting the physical safety of the President. In reading the article, It seems to support the view that we Christians are none to bright. There is an appropriate time and place to stand up for our beliefs. This is not it.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Agreeing with John Kerry--Surprised?, Me Too!
Since I am one of the privileged to have my Email address known to the Democrats, John Kerry still writes to me. Today's letter dealt with the fraud in elections, votes not counted etc. which is the same old "stolen election" rhetoric. He did admit that the teams of lawyers could not come up with sufficient proof to invalidate the results and requested I join him in calling Sen.. Frist and Rep. Hastert to demand the following:
"I urge you to join me in using this occasion to highlight our demand that Congress commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system. A Presidential election is a national federal election but we have different standards in different states for casting and counting votes. We need a national federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I will propose legislation to help achieve this."
What I agree with is the need for standards nationwide that will not allow for voting without proper registration, some recognized identification as proof of eligibility to register, voting in district registered, issuing absentee ballots in ample time to reach their destination and be returned by our military serving overseas and a method for time extension, if needed, to allow military votes to be counted. Early voting as allowed in NC allowed me to pick the day and the time I voted. I personally would vote for the paper ballot, completed in ink and counted by scanner. This allows for recounts if needed. I think that each voting area be supervised by a Democrat and
a Republican who both certify the status of scanners before the count starts and at specified intervals during the voting and at the completion of the scanning operation. These simple steps would allow people voting in both major parties to have some assurance that fraud is not occurring.
Kerry is going to propose legislation which in itself is unique considering his record during twenty years in the Senate (perhaps he has a ghost writer) but it will at least be discussed which is needed.
"I urge you to join me in using this occasion to highlight our demand that Congress commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system. A Presidential election is a national federal election but we have different standards in different states for casting and counting votes. We need a national federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I will propose legislation to help achieve this."
What I agree with is the need for standards nationwide that will not allow for voting without proper registration, some recognized identification as proof of eligibility to register, voting in district registered, issuing absentee ballots in ample time to reach their destination and be returned by our military serving overseas and a method for time extension, if needed, to allow military votes to be counted. Early voting as allowed in NC allowed me to pick the day and the time I voted. I personally would vote for the paper ballot, completed in ink and counted by scanner. This allows for recounts if needed. I think that each voting area be supervised by a Democrat and
a Republican who both certify the status of scanners before the count starts and at specified intervals during the voting and at the completion of the scanning operation. These simple steps would allow people voting in both major parties to have some assurance that fraud is not occurring.
Kerry is going to propose legislation which in itself is unique considering his record during twenty years in the Senate (perhaps he has a ghost writer) but it will at least be discussed which is needed.
Can Anybody Relate To This?
Cleaning Poem
I asked the Lord to tell me
Why my house is such a mess?
He asked if I'd been 'puting,
And I had to answer "yes"
He told me to get off my butt
And tidy up the house
And so I started cleaning up...
The smudges off my mouse.
I wiped and shined the topside
That really did the trick...
I was just admiring my work...
I didn't mean to 'click'
But click, I did, and LOL I found
A real absorbing site
That I got SO way into...
I was into it all night
<>
Nothing's changed except my mouse
It's very, very shiny
I guess my house will stay a mess...
While I sit here on my hiney
Author unknown
I asked the Lord to tell me
Why my house is such a mess?
He asked if I'd been 'puting,
And I had to answer "yes"
He told me to get off my butt
And tidy up the house
And so I started cleaning up...
The smudges off my mouse.
I wiped and shined the topside
That really did the trick...
I was just admiring my work...
I didn't mean to 'click'
But click, I did, and LOL I found
A real absorbing site
That I got SO way into...
I was into it all night
<
Nothing's changed except my mouse
It's very, very shiny
I guess my house will stay a mess...
While I sit here on my hiney
Author unknown
Free Exercise Of Religion
"New York state has already made it illegal for hospitals to refuse the morning-after pill to rape victims, regardless of religious affiliation. One hospital has already been fined $46,000 for failing to administer the abortifacient." This information comes from LifeSiteNews.com.
Seems to me this flies in the face of the establishment clause that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Although this is state law, it surely should not supercede Constitutional law. This is prohibiting the free
exercise of the freedom for churches which have a long history of establishing hospitals to sustain life and improve health. By state law they are now to stock and dispense medication that instead causes death of a beginning life despite their religious convictions. Not only does this undermine the mission of the church supported hospitals, it forces the health care providers such as Christian doctors, pharmacists and nurses to performi a task which is against their religious principles.
I realize that all people are not against abortion by the use of the morning-after pill and that is their right to make their personal decision.
There are many physicians, pharmacists and nurses who personally support the use of such medication so that a rape victim does not suffer the added trauma of being pregnant. While I sympathize with rape victims, I am thankful that I was not put in a position of administering such a pill.
I began my nursing education in the early 1950s and was taught in my Christian hospital school that I had a legal right to refuse to participate in abortions. Seems these rights are no longer intact. The ability of church run institutions to perform health services in keeping with their faith based principles is no longer protected. Hospitals which are faith based have long refused to have abortions performed in their institutions. and thus we saw the establishment of clinics which were dedicated to abortion. Some politicians have recommended changing this and forcing hospitals to perform abortions and force the citizens of our nation to underwrite the cost of abortions for women in low income situations.
I respect the diversity of people in our nation. I am not on a crusade to overturn "Roe" or to make everyone follow the mandates of my faith.
I am against the steady erosion of religious freedoms by laws that force everyone to follow the secular humanism that is on a constant march to undermine the moral fabric of my country.
Seems to me this flies in the face of the establishment clause that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Although this is state law, it surely should not supercede Constitutional law. This is prohibiting the free
exercise of the freedom for churches which have a long history of establishing hospitals to sustain life and improve health. By state law they are now to stock and dispense medication that instead causes death of a beginning life despite their religious convictions. Not only does this undermine the mission of the church supported hospitals, it forces the health care providers such as Christian doctors, pharmacists and nurses to performi a task which is against their religious principles.
I realize that all people are not against abortion by the use of the morning-after pill and that is their right to make their personal decision.
There are many physicians, pharmacists and nurses who personally support the use of such medication so that a rape victim does not suffer the added trauma of being pregnant. While I sympathize with rape victims, I am thankful that I was not put in a position of administering such a pill.
I began my nursing education in the early 1950s and was taught in my Christian hospital school that I had a legal right to refuse to participate in abortions. Seems these rights are no longer intact. The ability of church run institutions to perform health services in keeping with their faith based principles is no longer protected. Hospitals which are faith based have long refused to have abortions performed in their institutions. and thus we saw the establishment of clinics which were dedicated to abortion. Some politicians have recommended changing this and forcing hospitals to perform abortions and force the citizens of our nation to underwrite the cost of abortions for women in low income situations.
I respect the diversity of people in our nation. I am not on a crusade to overturn "Roe" or to make everyone follow the mandates of my faith.
I am against the steady erosion of religious freedoms by laws that force everyone to follow the secular humanism that is on a constant march to undermine the moral fabric of my country.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Letters for Our Troops
Slaglerock is once again collecting letters and messages for our troops at
LINK Take few minutes and send a letter or brief message of support and appreciation for our troops. They read this blog and read all the letters/messages in the comment section.
If someone would be kind enough to explain trackback and the mechanics of doing it, I will appreciate it. I noted in the comments section that I am not the only one who does
not use trackback. If you do, you can also post a letter and trackback to the Link above.
Thanks
LINK Take few minutes and send a letter or brief message of support and appreciation for our troops. They read this blog and read all the letters/messages in the comment section.
If someone would be kind enough to explain trackback and the mechanics of doing it, I will appreciate it. I noted in the comments section that I am not the only one who does
not use trackback. If you do, you can also post a letter and trackback to the Link above.
Thanks
Cows, Constitution and Ten Commandments
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls too. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.???
CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse! You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment!
From an Email, author unknown but it tickled my funnybone.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls too. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.???
CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse! You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment!
From an Email, author unknown but it tickled my funnybone.
AARP Is Not Speaking For Me
Although no specific details of the plan for changes in Social Secuity are yet to be debated in Congress, the President's plan for privatising a portion of the
current deduction for younger persons has had a fair amount of debate. I posted on October 18, 2004 noting that President Bush promised that current retirees and those approaching retirement would not experience a change in their benefits. I also noted that Sen. Kerry voted to tax my SS benefits. Much is written in the MSM decrying any tampering with the current program and blaming the Bush administration of having looted the fund. The fund has been looted for years and is replaced by government securities that pay low dividends. The AARP does not speak for me in it's efforts to forestall any change in current SS law.
The following excerpt of articles from the National Review Online LINKsupport my feelings and introduce information which is new to me such as the Thrift Savings Plan for government employees. I was aware for many years that Congress has voted itself a retirement program whose benefits vastly exceed what is available to ordinary citizens since the SS program did not provide sufficiently for those who are or were in power. I knew of many pre-redtirement deaths but never considered the degree to which ethnicity plays a role in many never collecting any benefits because of death at an early age. If they have children under age 18 there is a survivor's benefit as well as a survivor's benefit to a spouse if married 10 years or longer to the deceased. If survivor's do not qualify, the deceased person's entire contribution remains in government control.
As a senior citizen, I am concerned about the integrity of Social Security and wonder how our younger workers will survive if the system is bankrupt at the time they retire. The ratio of workers paying into the system compared to retirees drawing benefits will ultimately have one of two outcomes, the retirees will not get benefits or the taxation of all citizens will continue to rise in an effort to meet the obligations to SS beneficiearies. I believe that this problem deserves serious consideration on the part of Congress to take the steps needed to help future retirees some degree of economic security. Ownership of one's money seems to be a good goal so long as safeguard's against early withdrawal and guidelines by those with true investment expertise assist ordinary citizens in this process.
According to Donald Luskin's article of December 27, 2004,"The critics never mention that there’s already a government-administered retirement system that has shown for over 15 years that personal accounts are prudent, inexpensive, and simple. It’s the Thrift Savings Plan of the United States federal government, currently serving 3.3 million government employees.
The years since Thrift was first offered in 1987 couldn’t make for a better laboratory to crash-test a personal-account system. During this period there have been both bull and bear markets that were among the most severe in history. Through year-end 2003, investments in Thrift personal accounts have earned $44.4 billion in profits for system participants — an average of more than $13,000 per participant."
Tom Nugent writes onJanuary 04, 2005, "Let’s also understand that the so-called “money” that is “saved” in the Social Security trust fund is bogus. The fund holds government securities that pay low market rates to the trust fund. Even if the fund is fully “funded,” it will still hold only government paper. When payment to beneficiaries comes due because current contributions are exceeded by claims, the government has to sell those bonds to get the money to pay beneficiaries.
History demonstrates that private investments fluctuate in value in the short-term. However, if properly diversified, history tells us that a retirement plan’s probability of losing money is near zero. And let’s not forget that, in the short term, government bonds lost half their value back in the 1970s — so don’t just lay the blame on the short-term volatility of private markets."
Rich Lowry writes in the article dated 1/04/04,"According to Social Security expert David John of the Heritage Foundation, one-fifth of white males die between the ages of 50 and 70. But one-third of black males die between those ages. If you die before you reach the age of 62, you have no chance of collecting benefits, and if you die shortly thereafter, you will not recoup the payroll taxes you paid into the system.
Under most reform plans, a private account will fund the same spousal benefit as in the current system, but the remaining balance will go directly to the deceased's family. In the current system, if someone dies and has no wife or children, the money he has paid in simply disappears. Under reform, the beneficiary would be able to designate who receives the assets in his account, whether it is a niece or a church. The money stays in the community.
current deduction for younger persons has had a fair amount of debate. I posted on October 18, 2004 noting that President Bush promised that current retirees and those approaching retirement would not experience a change in their benefits. I also noted that Sen. Kerry voted to tax my SS benefits. Much is written in the MSM decrying any tampering with the current program and blaming the Bush administration of having looted the fund. The fund has been looted for years and is replaced by government securities that pay low dividends. The AARP does not speak for me in it's efforts to forestall any change in current SS law.
The following excerpt of articles from the National Review Online LINKsupport my feelings and introduce information which is new to me such as the Thrift Savings Plan for government employees. I was aware for many years that Congress has voted itself a retirement program whose benefits vastly exceed what is available to ordinary citizens since the SS program did not provide sufficiently for those who are or were in power. I knew of many pre-redtirement deaths but never considered the degree to which ethnicity plays a role in many never collecting any benefits because of death at an early age. If they have children under age 18 there is a survivor's benefit as well as a survivor's benefit to a spouse if married 10 years or longer to the deceased. If survivor's do not qualify, the deceased person's entire contribution remains in government control.
As a senior citizen, I am concerned about the integrity of Social Security and wonder how our younger workers will survive if the system is bankrupt at the time they retire. The ratio of workers paying into the system compared to retirees drawing benefits will ultimately have one of two outcomes, the retirees will not get benefits or the taxation of all citizens will continue to rise in an effort to meet the obligations to SS beneficiearies. I believe that this problem deserves serious consideration on the part of Congress to take the steps needed to help future retirees some degree of economic security. Ownership of one's money seems to be a good goal so long as safeguard's against early withdrawal and guidelines by those with true investment expertise assist ordinary citizens in this process.
According to Donald Luskin's article of December 27, 2004,"The critics never mention that there’s already a government-administered retirement system that has shown for over 15 years that personal accounts are prudent, inexpensive, and simple. It’s the Thrift Savings Plan of the United States federal government, currently serving 3.3 million government employees.
The years since Thrift was first offered in 1987 couldn’t make for a better laboratory to crash-test a personal-account system. During this period there have been both bull and bear markets that were among the most severe in history. Through year-end 2003, investments in Thrift personal accounts have earned $44.4 billion in profits for system participants — an average of more than $13,000 per participant."
Tom Nugent writes onJanuary 04, 2005, "Let’s also understand that the so-called “money” that is “saved” in the Social Security trust fund is bogus. The fund holds government securities that pay low market rates to the trust fund. Even if the fund is fully “funded,” it will still hold only government paper. When payment to beneficiaries comes due because current contributions are exceeded by claims, the government has to sell those bonds to get the money to pay beneficiaries.
History demonstrates that private investments fluctuate in value in the short-term. However, if properly diversified, history tells us that a retirement plan’s probability of losing money is near zero. And let’s not forget that, in the short term, government bonds lost half their value back in the 1970s — so don’t just lay the blame on the short-term volatility of private markets."
Rich Lowry writes in the article dated 1/04/04,"According to Social Security expert David John of the Heritage Foundation, one-fifth of white males die between the ages of 50 and 70. But one-third of black males die between those ages. If you die before you reach the age of 62, you have no chance of collecting benefits, and if you die shortly thereafter, you will not recoup the payroll taxes you paid into the system.
Under most reform plans, a private account will fund the same spousal benefit as in the current system, but the remaining balance will go directly to the deceased's family. In the current system, if someone dies and has no wife or children, the money he has paid in simply disappears. Under reform, the beneficiary would be able to designate who receives the assets in his account, whether it is a niece or a church. The money stays in the community.
Monday, January 03, 2005
UN Rescue Update-- Eight Days After Disaster
Diplomad offers another update on the UN team which finally arrived.
Read his full post.
" The team has spent the day and will likely spend a few more setting up their 'coordination and opcenter' at a local five-star hotel. And their number one concern, even before phones, fax and copy machines? Arranging for the hotel to provide 24hr catering service."The Diplomad
Once again, the UN shows just how efficiently run this world body is.
Isn't it great that the US pays so much of it's support. Thankfully
President Bush has engaged former Presidents Bush and Clinton to
continue seeking donations from private citizens and businesses. I trust this money will not be under UN control.
Read his full post.
" The team has spent the day and will likely spend a few more setting up their 'coordination and opcenter' at a local five-star hotel. And their number one concern, even before phones, fax and copy machines? Arranging for the hotel to provide 24hr catering service."The Diplomad
Once again, the UN shows just how efficiently run this world body is.
Isn't it great that the US pays so much of it's support. Thankfully
President Bush has engaged former Presidents Bush and Clinton to
continue seeking donations from private citizens and businesses. I trust this money will not be under UN control.
The Judiciary
"Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law.
The power of the Supreme Court has evolved over time, through a series of milestone court cases. One of the Court's most fundamental powers is judicial review–the power to judge the constitutionality of any act or law of the executive or legislative branch. Some of the Framers expected the Supreme Court to take on the role of determining the constitutionality of Congress's laws, but the Constitution did not explicitly assign it to the Court. Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case, established the power of judicial review."
LINK
In my previous post, I stated that unless the people, through their elected congress and executive branch have some means of dealing with judges who act beyond the scope of what is acceptable by the people, we have a judicial dictatorship. If decisions made by judges are not adhering to the Constitution of The United States as it was written, including the amendments, the courts are free to decide that their own opinions outweigh the opinions of the people. We lost the ability to utilize prayer in government schools. The ACLU has won many cases, upheld by the courts, that are in direct opposition to what the majority support. We therefore, via the inability to hold judges accountable for decisions contrary to what the majority would decide, are seeing the tyranny of the bench manifest itself. Rights of the majority have been eliminated in efforts to protect the viewpoints of a few. Congress and the executive branch are weakened by the ability of the courts to interpret legislation as unconstitutional even when there is no clear-cut support for their views. The people have lost their voice.
The power of the Supreme Court has evolved over time, through a series of milestone court cases. One of the Court's most fundamental powers is judicial review–the power to judge the constitutionality of any act or law of the executive or legislative branch. Some of the Framers expected the Supreme Court to take on the role of determining the constitutionality of Congress's laws, but the Constitution did not explicitly assign it to the Court. Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case, established the power of judicial review."
LINK
In my previous post, I stated that unless the people, through their elected congress and executive branch have some means of dealing with judges who act beyond the scope of what is acceptable by the people, we have a judicial dictatorship. If decisions made by judges are not adhering to the Constitution of The United States as it was written, including the amendments, the courts are free to decide that their own opinions outweigh the opinions of the people. We lost the ability to utilize prayer in government schools. The ACLU has won many cases, upheld by the courts, that are in direct opposition to what the majority support. We therefore, via the inability to hold judges accountable for decisions contrary to what the majority would decide, are seeing the tyranny of the bench manifest itself. Rights of the majority have been eliminated in efforts to protect the viewpoints of a few. Congress and the executive branch are weakened by the ability of the courts to interpret legislation as unconstitutional even when there is no clear-cut support for their views. The people have lost their voice.
Successes in Iraq
For anyone imnterested in what good things are happening in Iraq read the past two days posts from the Mudville Gaszette. Greyhawk links to a WSJ article written by Arthur Chrenkoff and reports the military successes within the hostilities reported by the MSM.
Mudville Gazette
Mudville Gazette
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Tracking Down Immigrant Fugitives
Homeland Security Department has 18 fugitive squads trying to track down 370,000 'absconders' -- illegal immigrants who have disobeyed orders to leave the country.
"At the top of the list were 6,000 absconders from Muslim and Middle Eastern countries, officials announced.
But by early 2003, authorities had resolved only 38 percent of those cases, either by detaining the immigrants or by confirming that they had left the country or gotten legal status, according to the 9/11 Commission. In a report on terrorist travel, the commission concluded: "It is very difficult to find alien absconders without extraordinary effort or pure luck."
"People feel they can get away with running . . . because the immigration law isn't enforced..."
Electronic ankle bracelets and ordering periodic call ins have been tried because of the lack of detention beds but these methods have allowed those ordered deported to abscond.
Currently the agency is making plans for 30 more teams which according to the article have four men and a supervisor involved in the search for one individual. When the leads fail, they move on to another absconder and eventually find one. Whether or not funding will be available to form these teams is uncertain.
It is difficult to accept that people who are ordered to leave the country are expected to "call in" and let officials know where they are. Why are these illegals allowed back into our population so they may disappear? How long does it take to arrange transportation back to the countries they came from? It would seem more economical to keep them in custody, get them to the airport and escort them to their home country. This would eliminate the need to build more detention facilities and the need to develop teams of fugitive squads to search them out after they have absconded.
LINK
"At the top of the list were 6,000 absconders from Muslim and Middle Eastern countries, officials announced.
But by early 2003, authorities had resolved only 38 percent of those cases, either by detaining the immigrants or by confirming that they had left the country or gotten legal status, according to the 9/11 Commission. In a report on terrorist travel, the commission concluded: "It is very difficult to find alien absconders without extraordinary effort or pure luck."
"People feel they can get away with running . . . because the immigration law isn't enforced..."
Electronic ankle bracelets and ordering periodic call ins have been tried because of the lack of detention beds but these methods have allowed those ordered deported to abscond.
Currently the agency is making plans for 30 more teams which according to the article have four men and a supervisor involved in the search for one individual. When the leads fail, they move on to another absconder and eventually find one. Whether or not funding will be available to form these teams is uncertain.
It is difficult to accept that people who are ordered to leave the country are expected to "call in" and let officials know where they are. Why are these illegals allowed back into our population so they may disappear? How long does it take to arrange transportation back to the countries they came from? It would seem more economical to keep them in custody, get them to the airport and escort them to their home country. This would eliminate the need to build more detention facilities and the need to develop teams of fugitive squads to search them out after they have absconded.
LINK
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Rehnquist defends lifetime tenures
"WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, ailing from thyroid cancer, defended lifetime appointments for judges as necessary to insulate them from pressures as they deal with politically sensitive issues.
Rehnquist's year-end report, to be released today, addresses concerns about so-called activist judges and Congress' move to strip judges of some of their authority."
Rehnquist said that judges should not be punished by Congress because of their decisions and that their lifetime tenure protects their independence.
``It is not a perfect system -- vacancies do not occur on regular schedules, and judges do not always decide cases the way their appointers might have anticipated. But for over 200 years it has served our democracy well and ensured a commitment to the rule of law,'' Rehnquist said.LINK
I have to agree that this is not a perfect system in that tenure protects a person from being accountable for abuse of their position. This can hold true for teachers, legislators as well as judges. Years ago, the solemn charge that came with accepting the position seemed enough to keep most persons in lifetime positions accountable to the highest standard of conduct in their professional role and to leave their personal politics or agendas outside the realm of their work. This no longer appears to be the case.
In the United States there is a separation of powers. If the executive branch extends it's powers, there is a remedy. Congress may impeach, people will not re-elect and the Supreme Court can rule against the executive branch. The same holds true for congressional members in that the individual vote of one or of a minority of members can not mandate a congressional vote, they may be censured and kept out of leadership positions within congress and the people can vote them out of office. Truly illegal activity of a representative or senator may be and has been handled by the courts, thereby forcing resignation from the position held. Unless the people, through their elected congress and executive branch have some means of dealing with judges who act beyond the scope of what is acceptable by the people, we have a judicial dictatorship. Our republic ceases to be for the people and by the people since we do not have a direct voice in the appointment of judges to the Federal and Supreme Courts.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with a system of checks and balances. Legislation is the function of Congress and not of activist judges
who bring their own personal bias into their rulings. One of the reasons that I, as an Independent voter, voted for Republicans was my hope that this judicial misuse of their powers would be reigned in. Something as significant as gay marriage should not be based on the opinion of a few but rather voted on by referendum to do the will of the majority of the people.
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." --James Madison
"'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government." --George Washington
The recent election and the power of "values" plus the number of states who passed law against non traditional marriage should indicate what the majority of people in this nation support. The courts who consistently favor the minority opinion, the offense to one or a few individuals sensitivity to anything that represents the moral and faith values of our founding fathers is the reason people are upset with the courts. If and when judges hold their interpretations in light of constitutional origins, we the people will not accept tenure for life as a given for anyone in public office.
UPDATE
For other opinions read Patterico
Rehnquist's year-end report, to be released today, addresses concerns about so-called activist judges and Congress' move to strip judges of some of their authority."
Rehnquist said that judges should not be punished by Congress because of their decisions and that their lifetime tenure protects their independence.
``It is not a perfect system -- vacancies do not occur on regular schedules, and judges do not always decide cases the way their appointers might have anticipated. But for over 200 years it has served our democracy well and ensured a commitment to the rule of law,'' Rehnquist said.LINK
I have to agree that this is not a perfect system in that tenure protects a person from being accountable for abuse of their position. This can hold true for teachers, legislators as well as judges. Years ago, the solemn charge that came with accepting the position seemed enough to keep most persons in lifetime positions accountable to the highest standard of conduct in their professional role and to leave their personal politics or agendas outside the realm of their work. This no longer appears to be the case.
In the United States there is a separation of powers. If the executive branch extends it's powers, there is a remedy. Congress may impeach, people will not re-elect and the Supreme Court can rule against the executive branch. The same holds true for congressional members in that the individual vote of one or of a minority of members can not mandate a congressional vote, they may be censured and kept out of leadership positions within congress and the people can vote them out of office. Truly illegal activity of a representative or senator may be and has been handled by the courts, thereby forcing resignation from the position held. Unless the people, through their elected congress and executive branch have some means of dealing with judges who act beyond the scope of what is acceptable by the people, we have a judicial dictatorship. Our republic ceases to be for the people and by the people since we do not have a direct voice in the appointment of judges to the Federal and Supreme Courts.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with a system of checks and balances. Legislation is the function of Congress and not of activist judges
who bring their own personal bias into their rulings. One of the reasons that I, as an Independent voter, voted for Republicans was my hope that this judicial misuse of their powers would be reigned in. Something as significant as gay marriage should not be based on the opinion of a few but rather voted on by referendum to do the will of the majority of the people.
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." --James Madison
"'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government." --George Washington
The recent election and the power of "values" plus the number of states who passed law against non traditional marriage should indicate what the majority of people in this nation support. The courts who consistently favor the minority opinion, the offense to one or a few individuals sensitivity to anything that represents the moral and faith values of our founding fathers is the reason people are upset with the courts. If and when judges hold their interpretations in light of constitutional origins, we the people will not accept tenure for life as a given for anyone in public office.
UPDATE
For other opinions read Patterico
The Diplomad Describes UN Response To Disaster
Read the Diplomad's take on UN efforts in SE Asia. Those paid UN workers really need the comforts of home before they do anything
The Diplomad
The Diplomad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
