God has convicted me that I am in the wrong when I harshly attack President Obama personally. He is our president, and because of his position, I am to show him respect. I can still speak out against policies I disagree with, but in a more respectful manner. Therefore, I apologize to any I have offended with my over-the-top rhetoric.
God is still on the throne, and He has permitted Obama to be our president. I don’t for one moment believe that Obama was God’s choice because of his many positions that are contrary to God’s Word, including abortion, homosexuality, and a disdain for Israel. But, let’s face it. America has rejected God and His principles. For that reason, just as the Israelites who abandoned God thousands of years ago were forced to live under the rule of an evil King Ahab, America deserves to suffer under the leadership of President Obama.
In the future, I will attempt to be more respectful and less harsh against the president and my other opponents. After all, before becoming a Christian, I used to be in their camp. I was deceived, just as they currently are. But, praise be to God, He had mercy on me for all my sins and misguided beliefs; therefore, I should do the same.
If I revert back to my old fleshly ways, please hold me accountable. And I ask that all those who leave comments to please tone down their harsh rhetoric as well.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
George Tiller Killed at Church
For probably the last year, I have been praying DAILY that righteousness would prevail concerning the corrupt late-term abortionist, George Tiller, of Wichita, Kansas, who has escaped prison time for his illegal activities of performing abortions beyond the time considered legal in a woman’s pregnancy. To my great shock, I read this afternoon on the internet that he was shot and killed in his church this very morning. When praying, I was thinking in terms of a prison sentence or at minimum the revoking of his medical license.
Though his actions were unconscionable, his murder was wrong and will not be helpful to the anti-abortion cause. Now, all pro-lifers will be classified as "violent right-wing extremists", which is hardly the case. Expect the media and the Obama Administration to run with this to further their abortion cause; before it is all said and done, they will make a hero out of him, which could not be further from the truth.
Tiller did not deserve to live after all the innocent lives he snuffed out, all in the name of money, and it is regretful that his family must suffer. But, taking his life was wrong.
“Vengeance is mine” saith the Lord.
Though his actions were unconscionable, his murder was wrong and will not be helpful to the anti-abortion cause. Now, all pro-lifers will be classified as "violent right-wing extremists", which is hardly the case. Expect the media and the Obama Administration to run with this to further their abortion cause; before it is all said and done, they will make a hero out of him, which could not be further from the truth.
Tiller did not deserve to live after all the innocent lives he snuffed out, all in the name of money, and it is regretful that his family must suffer. But, taking his life was wrong.
“Vengeance is mine” saith the Lord.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Obama's Anti-Gun History
Like most conservatives, I oppose President Obama’s choice for Supreme Court. Her racial comments are disturbing, as well as her comment about making law from the bench, but we all knew the president would choose a justice who would be a judicial activist as the following video suggests about Sonia Sotomayor:
Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about having a judge who opposes the Second Amendment. Once again, we should not be surprised because Barack Obama also is anti-gun.
I happened to come across this little gem from before the election and thought it was worth reviewing once again:
Pajamas Media reports on Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment:
“As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.
There is another, less known, reason.
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun ‘grassroots’ organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.
In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an ‘outsider’ serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.
Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that ‘sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.’ Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he ‘was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.’ Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.
Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers ‘objected strenuously’ to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an ‘”agenda of balance” that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.’ Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.
The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the ‘Second Amendment Research Center’ as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:
‘The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.’
The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarrassed to publish an open letter on the affair).
The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he ‘respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.’ But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.”
Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about having a judge who opposes the Second Amendment. Once again, we should not be surprised because Barack Obama also is anti-gun.
I happened to come across this little gem from before the election and thought it was worth reviewing once again:
Pajamas Media reports on Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment:
“As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.
There is another, less known, reason.
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun ‘grassroots’ organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.
In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an ‘outsider’ serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.
Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that ‘sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.’ Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he ‘was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.’ Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.
Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers ‘objected strenuously’ to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an ‘”agenda of balance” that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.’ Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.
The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the ‘Second Amendment Research Center’ as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:
‘The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.’
The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarrassed to publish an open letter on the affair).
The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he ‘respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.’ But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
