Archive for July 16th, 2009

Hear My Cry, O God

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Hear My Cry, O God

Hear my cry, O God;
listen to my prayer.

From the ends of the earth I call to you,
I call as my heart grows faint;
lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

For you have been my refuge,
a strong tower against the foe.

I long to dwell in your tent forever
and take refuge in the shelter of your wings.

For you have heard my vows, O God;
you have given me the heritage of those who fear your name.

Increase the days of the king’s life,
his years for many generations.

May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever;
appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him.

Then will I ever sing praise to your name
and fulfill my vows day after day.

Psalm 61 (New International Version)

Quote of the Day – Barack Obama

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

“I owe those unions … When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t mind feeling obligated.”

— President Barack Obama
“The Audacity of Hope”

“‘Gay’ Penguin Flies Straight” by Matt Barber

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

The highly contentious “nature vs. nurture” debate over whether gay penguins choose the homosexual lifestyle or are hatched that way has reached a hard boil.

San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTUV reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died. Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTUV.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”

When asked if heterosexual penguins can become gay, Besen replied, “Well, um, sure. It happens all the time. But in that case it’s just the penguin embracing who he really is. Penguin pride is quite a courageous thing to witness, what with all the mean-spiritedness and homophobia among Penguo-Americans and everything. Once gay, always gay! You know; birds of a feather and all that.”

“See,” continued Besen, “medical science has conclusively determined that, while still eggs, many of the more effeminate penguins sometimes get a bit scrambled, so to speak, due to what’s called ‘Homospheniscus Magellanicus Inheritus’ or, as it’s commonly referred: ‘The Gay Penguin Gene’ (GPG).”

“No, seriously. It’s science,” insisted Besen. “Harry’s as gay today as he’s ever been. Mark my words. It’s just a matter of time until he ends up slinking around some back alley gay bar in the Castro District, strung out on meth.”

Read the rest of the article here.

What Are Dems Hiding in Healthcare Bill?

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

It still amazes me, but doesn’t really surprise me, that lawmakers don’t read or know what is in the legislation they vote on. If I did my job like that, I’d be fired within the week!! Yet these people are responsible for impacting almost every aspect of our lives. It’s been going on for quite some time as well.
I remember several years ago hearing of lawmakers leaving an in-service meeting on campaign finance reform, making the comment that they won’t have voted for the legislation if they had realized how much it was going to impact them. Now if they gave such little thought to legislation that was going to affect them directly, how much attention are they giving to legislation that they have exempted themselves from?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) recently admitted that if every member of the House were required to read the Democrats’ bill to create a new government-run healthcare entitlement program, the bill would receive very few votes. House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (Texas) and fellow Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) had planned to deliver special order speeches on Hoyer’s statement, but Democrats voted to close the chamber early and end floor debate.

Congressman Carter says the healthcare legislation currently being marked up in three separate committees would never stand a chance of passing if lawmakers agreed to sign a pledge to read bills before voting on them.

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee offers insight into what is buried in some healthcare legislation. He has noted that, among other things, two healthcare reform bills — one in the House and one in the Senate — could mean more abortions at taxpayers’ expense. In addition, he says, the bills would nullify at least some state limitations on abortion.

Original Link.

“Dems to GOP Nominee: Will the Defendant Please Rise?” by Ann Coulter

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.

Interestingly, the Democrats’ examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, “You may now uncuff the defendant.”

Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic — as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.

No, they had to go back to Roger Taney — confirmed in 1836 — who was allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis — confirmed in 1916 — allegedly a victim of anti-Semitism.

Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada’s nomination, blaming it on Republicans: “He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge.”

The Republicans were “in charge” for precisely 14 days between Estrada’s nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada’s nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.

Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked “by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats” — as The New York Times put it.

Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada “especially dangerous” — as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer — because “he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”

Sandy Berger wasn’t available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.

Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada’s house.

In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.

At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be “handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community.”

Alas, today Democrats can’t really place Estrada — James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on “CHiPs.” They also can’t recall the name “Anita Hill.” Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her.

Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still burn in liberal hearts!

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his “hope” is that “if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment,” I think it’s a lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war — while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech — everything short of driving a woman into a lake! — within an hour of Reagan’s announcing Bork’s nomination.

To defend “the right to privacy,” liberals investigated Bork’s video rentals. (Alfred Hitchcock, the Marx Brothers’ movies and Ruthless People — the last one supposedly a primer for dealing with the Democrats.)

Liberals unleashed scorned woman Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in the 11th hour of his hearings to accuse him of sexual harassment — charges that were believed by no one who knew both Thomas and Hill, or by the vast majority of Americans watching the hearings.

But when the tables were turned and Bill Clinton nominated left-wing extremist/ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans lavished her with praise and voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, in a 96-to-3 vote. (Poor Ruth. If Sotomayor is confirmed, Ginsburg will no longer be known as “the hot one in the robe.”)

The next Clinton nominee, Stephen Breyer, was also treated gallantly — no video rental records or perjurious testimony was adduced against him — and confirmed in an 87-to-9 vote.

As Mrs. Sam Alito can attest, the magnanimity was not returned to Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. She was driven from the hearings in tears by the Democrats’ vicious attacks on her husband’s character. The great “uniter” Barack Obama voted against both nominees.

Even Justice Ginsburg recently remarked to The New York Times that her and Justice Breyer’s hearings were “unusual” in how “civil” they were.

Hmmm, why might that be?

To the extent that the Sotomayor hearings have been less than civil, it is, again, liberals who have made it so, launching personal attacks against the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, and even the fireman whose complaint started the Ricci case.

But it was a nice speech.

Original Link.

NEA Flexes ‘Political Muscle,’ Backs Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

This is no surprise to me. What does surprise me is that they have taken this long to come out officially with this stance.

The NEA recently held its annual convention in San Diego, California, where members voted on two issues of importance to those involved in the culture war. One of those issues was whether the union would support same-gender marriage. According to Jeralee Smith, co-founder of the Conservative Educators Caucus, the resolution passed by roughly a two-thirds majority.

“There are quite a few items where the NEA absolutely puts its political muscle behind taking down any legislation in any state that they consider to be discriminatory to homosexuals,” says Smith. “And some of the language in the resolution also hints that the NEA will try to take down the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] on the federal level.”

During the meeting, the organization’s retiring general counsel, Bob Chanin, complained that “conservative and right-wing [edited]” are after the NEA and its state affiliates. Smith called that statement “refreshing honesty” on Chanin’s part about how he feels about conservatives.

Original Link.