Middle America's Worldview

Not surprisingly the votes were in for proceeding with the health care debacle. They passed with 60, barely. All democrats voted yes, and all but one republican voted no (Voinovich (R-OH) did not vote).

You can see it here.

Some of the dem's are making such statements as

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation's health care system for all Americans rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said just before 2:30 p.m. Saturday. "It is not what people sent us here to do."

It sounds good, but realistically she is just one vote in a room full of others. If Blanche Lincoln wanted to make a change, she would have voted a no, when it was her time to do so. imho

There is a growing group of people that are tired of statements, and are starting to really see how public officers are voting. Lincoln was one of the very few in the spot light. Her vote was being watched by all the political stations, as well as our constituents. I fear she made the wrong call.

Another quote from Lincoln, "First of all, it was very important to the people of Arkansas that we do take our time, and I respect that," Lincoln said in a Saturday interview. "After our town hall meetings, I really felt a real passion and a strength among Arkansans. They want us to do the right thing and taking our time and doing that and making sure that we're not rushing through these things."

Yes, seems Lincoln is still not on the same page with Arkansans regarding the 'right thing'.

With her poll numbers dropping

her approval rating back home has dropped 11 points and now stands at 43 percent, 1 percentage point above Obama’s in the state, according to a University of Arkansas poll released earlier this month. And by a 9-point margin, a clear plurality of voters in Arkansas opposes the public insurance option like the one included in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, the poll found.

So, if the clear majority does not wish this type of insurance bill, why bring it on the floor at all? Why is she like all blue-dog dem's committing political suicide?

I have always been fascinated with Biblical prophecy. A myriad of books written more than 2000 years ago (at least ), with no prophecies being wrong so far. Albeit, the latter ones haven't occurred yet, but the season is definitely here.

With the 2012 movie out, there is a renewed interest in general prophecy. Most are focusing on the Mayan calendar, or Nostradamus. However, I would urge all to read up on biblical prophecy.

One of the biblical prophecies most agree with is the oncoming of a world goverment, with one world currency. The scene is the Antichrist having control of the world. One of these means is by having control of money/supplies.


"13:16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 13:17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name" (Revelation 13:16-17 KJV)

In order for the above to occur, you must have at least 2 things in place.
1) a currency all are utilizing
2) a means to store and identify every transaction

The mark is subject for another time. However, a simple individual chip would suffice having your identity. A central database would also be used.

The thing I am looking at here is the one world government with one world currency.
Remember, Revelation was written over 2000 years ago, on the island of Patmos.

Check out these two videos from Fox News (Glenn Beck) having analyst speaking of the upcoming world government, and world currency.

Representive Rogers make a strong stance against the Obama Healthcare plan.



Glad to see someone has the gonad's to speak up about it.

Wow, too much going on regarding this new U.S. Administration.

Admin says other news outlets "Don't play with Fox".


White House to Isolate Fox News

I like many others before me struggle with the idea of moving off an existing platform onto a new one.

Although, I have utilized Blogger for a few years, I have made the decision to move onto a new website http://mcole.us

It will allow me to modify, add, ect. more than a simple blogging platform.

I request my 5 readers to follow me over. : )

Been quite awhile before I blogged. Been busy on a new SQL class, completed my Perl class (passed).

We are also busy with the kids sports. Daughters in Basketball and son with Soccer, busy busy.

I also been spending some time creating a new website for my platform. This will help me have a one stop launch to the other sites/apps, I use. I was on 3 games for facebook but cut back to only one. Amazing how much time is wasted on those games.

Here is the full length movie of the Obama Deception.

I ran across these videos while here in Texas. The initial site I found them on are Prison Planet.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer not only stopped and assaulted the driver/EMT, but there is a patient in the vehicle during the altercation. No charges were applied on the officer after a Oklahoma Judge reviewed the incident.

Here is the 8 minute video taken from the police vehicle. Note the release of the video took some time and doing (according to the article).







Here is the phone coverage of the patients family member.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Has History Of Flawed Legal Thinking
By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

May 28, 2009 – President Barack Hussein Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court has a history of liberal judicial activism and poorly reasoned decisions.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Yale Law School graduate and currently serves on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. She has been a federal judge, a district attorney and worked in private practice. She has authored or participated in thousands of court cases over the course of her legal career. For this very reason, there needs to be a proper vetting of her extensive record, which will take some time.

Much is being made of her being the first Hispanic woman being nominated to the Supreme Court, but what many in the media are not talking about is the nomination of Miguel Estrada who was picked by President Bush to be nominated to the D.C. Circuit.

Where were all these “let’s put a Hispanic on the court” cheerleaders back then?

Democrats stalled confirmation for more than two years. In fact, Democrat memos leaked by the Wall Street Journal in 2003, showed that their strategy was to smear him as “especially dangerous.”

One of the memos described Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) “as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Hispanic legislators like New York Democrat Nydia Velazquez who heads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, opposed Estrada because of his judicial philosophy. Now, Democrats are pushing Sotomayor simply because she is Hispanic.

Estrada was well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court – and his rags-to-riches story was as compelling as Sotomayor’s. He would have been the first Hispanic on the Court, but Democrats delayed his confirmation hearing for so long, he finally withdrew his name from the running. Apparently, he wasn’t the “right kind” of Hispanic.

Who Is Sotomayor?

Sotomayor has admitted that she views the role of a judge as an activist who makes policy decisions – a role that should be limited to the executive or legislative branches of government. On a panel at Duke University Law School in 2005, she said:
All of the Legal Defense Funds out there—they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is—Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t “make law,” I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. . . . [Audience laughter]
Curt Levey with the Committee for Justice has said of Sotomayor’s taped admission:
In other words, Sotomayor believes that unelected judges like herself should be the nation’s policy-makers rather than sticking to interpretation of the law.
Wendy Long, Chief Counsel, Judicial Confirmation Network has expressed concern about Sotomayor’s legal views:
Comments yesterday by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and today by Senator Chuck Schumer, that statements made at Duke University by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in which she said appellate courts should ‘make policy’ were taken out of context are purposely misleading and outright misinformation designed to walk back an obvious vetting problem this White House has become known for. If Mr. Gibbs or Senator Schumer were to read other law review articles written by Judge Sotomayor, her own published word, it is clear and unequivocal that Judge Sotomayor has a long track record of advocating for using courts to make policy and laws. It is obvious that the reason the White House has churned up its spin machine on this is because countless polls consistently show that the American people to do not support judges making policy or law from the bench. The American people have spoken loudly and often on this subject, they want judges who interpret law as made through the people and their elected representatives, not through judges imposing their personal political views from the bench as Judge Sotomayor has consistently advocated.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recommended Sonia Sotomayor to President Obama. He says she’s a moderate and has the most extensive record of anyone nominated to the Supreme Court in a long time. He also agrees that Republicans have every right to scrutinize her voluminous record of cases during the confirmation process.

Her legal decisions are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Rosen, writing for the liberal New Republic has said this about Sotomayor:
Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with [Sotomayor], nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats ... but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices."
Jonathan Turley, an equally liberal professor of law at George Washington University, reviewed Sotomayor's opinions and concluded:
[Her opinions] are notable in one thing, in that it's a lack of depth. There's nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. ... You can't say she's a natural choice for the Supreme Court. (MSNBC, May 26, 2009)
Badly-Reasoned Court Decisions

One of her decisions that is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court is Ricci v. DeStefano, which involves a reverse discrimination case involving firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. The firefighters were denied promotion because they were not African American. One of them was Hispanic, the rest were white. Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the city.

In this firefighter case, Frank Ricci had scored well on a 2003 firefighters test for promotion to lieutenant and captain. He had studied eight to 13 hours a day to prepare for test and had spent more than $1,000 buying books for his homework. He paid an acquaintance to read them onto audiotapes because he is dyslexic. Ricci got one of the highest scores, but did not get promoted. Why? Because it was determined that not enough blacks had done well enough to be promoted. New Haven discarded the test results and did not promote anyone.

Ricci and 17 other firefighters – including an Hispanic – filed a lawsuit against the city for wrongful discrimination. He and his fellow firefighters were denied the American dream because of Sonia Sotomayor.

As National Journal reporter and lawyer Stuart Taylor reports:
… in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both. ... The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed the firefighters' appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case.
Interesting, during her confirmation battle this summer, the current Supreme Court is likely to overturn this decision this July as it has done in past cases involving Sotomayor’s decisions.

Among those cases the Supreme Court has rejected from Sotomayor are: N.Y. Times Co., v.Tasini; Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko; Granholm v. Heald; Merrill Lynch v. Dabit; Entery Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. and others.

Anti-Gun Nominee

Judge Sotomayor could face serious problems from Second Amendment groups. As Curt Levey has explained:
Obama's choice of one of the few federal judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local regulation of firearms -- that is, unless they happen to live in the District of Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be forced to explain to his constituents why he's supporting a nominee who thinks those constituents don't have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if they're drawn into the debate. Obama's selection of Sotomayor makes that virtually certain.
As Ken Blackwell said yesterday:
"President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice. There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota. These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. ... [N]ever underestimate the political power of American gun owners."

With the introduction (to me) of Facebook and Twitter, I haven't been blogging for quite some time. I must admit, having a known viewership allows me to post more mundane things day to day. Additionally, I don't feel I have to have a minimum of 3 paragraphs to write, in order to make it my while, unlike blogging.

----
The other day, I had a scary thought. After reviewing the 1950's in comparison to the 60's, you can really see the moral decline of America. It was a radical influx of ideas along with sexual promiscuity and drugs. I suspect these would-be world changers believed it was all for the better of America society. Many of them, moved onto positions in our society, having the impact in cultural change.

I am looking now at the diversity of our electronic and drug war, thinking I have now become the free thinker.

Taking a look at the software industry, you have two cultures battling it out. There's the open source community and the proprietary buisineses. Each claiming their ideaology of software is better.

Taking a look at the drug community, you have the holistic/natural community that is opposed by big pharmaceutical drug companies with patents.

Viewing each climate, whether it's software or drugs, there are two distinct sides. Interesting enough, both have many similiarities. One side wishes to contain and build wealth on restrictions. The other side, wishes to have a more open/availibility type of community.

I am finding myself directed to the open side. Free-thinker.

Alert: Members of a coalition organized to fight attacks on America's First Amendment rights in response to a multitude of developments under President Obama are expressing alarm at the United Kingdom's decision to ban popular U.S. talk radio host Michael Savage from its shores.

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Savage was on a list of people who would be unwelcome in the island nation.

Roger Hedgecock, who recently was named as the chief of the new American Radio Free Speech Coalition, said the designation is a shot across the bow to American rights.

"The British government action barring Michael Savage is a frightening preview of what we can expect in our own country as the PC police shut down the voices of dissent," he said.

The coalition was launched under the Don't Touch My Dial slogan to defend free speech and First Amendment rights from a variety of attacks that have developed, including the current Washington demand for a return to some form of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally questionable.

One effort is Washington's plan to assemble local "commissions" to provide "accountability" for radio station. Free speech advocates contends the groups would be no more than complaint boards for liberal interests to launch attacks on conservative talk radio.

Some found the U.K. move against Savage to be so outlandish they looked for further reasons behind it.

It's time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

One WND reader said, "[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano has been releasing odd DHS lists about extremists, heavily criticized by Savage, and mysteriously he appears on England's watch list at the same time? Napolitano should be forced to resign over this and not just Smith."

Napolitano's recent "extremist" reports have targeted Americans who support Second Amendment rights, third party political candidates, homeschool and oppose abortion as "extremists" who would bear close watching.

Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, wrote in a commentary that the U.K. ban wouldn't track logically, pointing out that Savage wasn't asking to travel there.

But he said if the ban is clothed in the backdrop of what's happening in Washington, it makes a little more sense.

"Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are conducting a scorched-earth war on the First Amendment. The Federal Communications Commission will soon be headed and controlled by an appointee who thinks government, not the free market, should control broadcast programming. The appointee to be regulatory czar for the administration has flirted with ideas like a 'Fairness Doctrine' for the Internet and mandatory 24-hour, cooling-off periods before sending angry e-mails. As we speak, local 'commissar commissions' are being established in every radio market to monitor programming and challenge broadcast licenses on the basis of content. Hate-crimes legislation has passed the House and is headed for the Senate a bill that would punish thoughts and speech and provide, for the first time, special protections to a new 'victim class' of pedophiles," he wrote.

"There is little question for any serious and objective observer that the new Washington power structure is targeting the most significant voice of dissent left in America talk radio," he continued. "I believe with near 100 percent certainty, though I admit I can't prove it, that the initiative for this symbolic effort to ban Michael Savage from a country he had no intention of visiting came not from London, but from Washington."

Savage's audience is the third-largest in the U.S., and he's been arguably the most critical of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

"He was the perfect target for a pre-emptive and insidious attack on his character," Farah wrote.

The Don't Touch My Dial coalition said Smith's linking Savage with "terrorists and Neo-Nazi murderers" was a "disgraceful injustice."

Other members of the coalition include Lars Larson, Rusty Humphries, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Steve Gill, Joyce Kaufman and Steve Malzberg.

Kaufman wrote that she does not "subscribe to any of the many conspiracy theories designed to strike fear in the hearts of patriotic Americans."

But word of Savage's ban "sent a shudder down my spine."

"How did two great western civilizations, the U.K. and the U.S. find themselves challenging John Locke's ideals and the U.S. Constitution?" she asked.

"We cannot call ourselves a Judeo-Christian nation, we cannot speak without fear of national or even international censure and sanction, the fourth estate has become the president's cheerleaders rather than inquisitors, and when half a million patriots gather together in mock 'American Tea Parties,' they are ignored and marginalized by the very government they are attempting to petition for a redress of their grievances," she wrote.

Savage, she said, "is making his stand. He stands alone on the wall. He has fought these battles before, on the air, in the courts and in the court of public opinion. I say every patriot needs to join him on the wall this time. These are the times that separate the men from the boys and the women from the boys as well. When the Patrick Henrys and Molly Pitchers need to get off their butts and up on the wall."

One WND reader copied the news agency in on an e-mail to Smith:

"It is obvious you do not listen to his show on a daily basis and rely on others to tell you what Dr. Savage is all about. Let me briefly tell you what Dr. Michael Savage is all about. His manifesto is borders, language and culture. Something your country could definitely focus on as you continue to allow the hordes of illegal Muslim immigrants to come in your country and erode your borders, language and culture. "If you are going to put Savage on your black list, you better put me and millions of other listeners of Dr. Savage on that list as well."

The "Fairness Doctrine" at issue now in the U.S. was established in 1949 by the FCC to require broadcasters to provide "fair" programming, essentially demanding the broadcast of opposing views.

But the Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that while the policy did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, if the doctrine ever began to restrain free speech, its constitutionality should be reviewed. In 1974, the court said the doctrine "dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."

Ten years later, the court found the rationale that debate was scarce and therefore the opposing viewpoints should be required was flawed, and in 1987 the plan was abolished.

At the Frugal-Café blog, Vicki McClure Davidson wrote, "It seems bizarre that a radio entertainer in one country can be banned from entry into another simply because of their opinions. Especially if those opinions aren't of the 'All capitalists must die like pigs' variety."

"I didn't see Michael Moore or Al Franken on the list, nor Janeane Garofalo or Keith Olbermann or Sandra Bernhard for their hate speech. What about William Ayres or Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton? They may not have asked to be allowed to enter the U.K. Or they could all be on the longer, unpublished list, right up there with 'who knows who.' Would it be reasonable to assume that Howard Stern would also be on the U.K. list for his outrageous behavior?" she wrote.

"I'm curious. Does the ban in Britain work both ways? If so, does this mean the U.K. won't be hypocritical and will deport their own left-wing extremist comedian Russell Brand for his 'undesirable behavior'? Yeah, thought not," she wrote.

Brian Myrick of the Seattle Examiner said, "The idea that his [Savage's] views might pose a threat to the United Kingdom or its citizens as do other persons who made it on the list is preposterous. "If Britain is a teeming pool of volatile hate, only waiting for someone to walk along and toss a match, that is a societal problem for the British to tackle as a nation."

Note: Concerned individuals may contact Britain's Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith by e-mail, call 011 44 20 7035 4848 or fax 011 44 20 7035 4745. (WND)

I wonder if there is really anything to this conspiracy of Illimunati?

Conspiracy

Fascinating. I will start to follow this YOUTUBE. The undercover video clearly shows Plan Parenthood clinics are providing abortions to underage girls, without (lawfully) informing the authorities on supposed adult partners. However, the organization will simply say it's due to the workers, not the organization itself.

In the day of transparency, why would one of America's leading soda company's refuse to have this type of resolution?

PepsiCo, is opposing a shareholder resolution that requires it provide more information concerning its charitable contributions. The resolution will be voted on at the shareholders meeting May 6. The resolution reads:

"Resolved: That the shareholders request the Company to provide a semiannual report...disclosing: the Company's standards for choosing which organizations receive the Company's assets in the form of charitable contributions; business rationale and purpose for each of the charitable contributions; personnel who participated in making the decisions to contribute; the benefits to the Company and beneficiaries produced by Company contributions; and a follow-up confirming that the organization actually used the contributions for the purpose stated."

Quick to take credit for the hostage rescue, but now we learn why it was dragged out over four days.


Source

1. BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.

Thanks to Stop the ACLU for sharing.

This movie looks interesting.




The film was created by a family on low budget. Home schoolers on top of it all.

I am disappointed in this flip/flop of a mentality.

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed.

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

So he was for Prop 8 before, now since Iowa's court passed Gay Marriage, he is against Prop 8? Doesn't make sense. Either your for or against gay marriage.

Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.

Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.

"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.

I agree with both guys on this one. Seems Warren is straddling the fence on this one, for some reason. This sending mix messages, only confuse the listener and devalues his support or non-support on items of interest.

Crazy end of last week and weekend of violence, as two gunmen fired upon people (separately and in total different locations).


3 officers shot in Stanton

A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and "lying in wait" opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.

Police Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn't clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

This guy laid in wait with a bulletproof vest. When two cops answered, bang bang. Both where immediately shot in the head. Crazy. Now 3 of our policemen are dead, and this guy only has wounds to the legs. This supposed fear of the Obama Admin to take away his guns (IMHO), is bull.

Most likely now, the Obama Admin will use his actions as an excuse to restrict gun ownernship.

------

Next on the list this occured.

FOX news reports that an "Asian" male (not the UK Asian?), 20's, entered the building, a civic center, and started shooting. Number of dead is unknown, at least 4 shot, 41 people have been taken hostage. The American Civic Association "assists immigrants and refugees with immigration and personal counseling, resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpreters, and translators. Fosters cross cultural understanding for the entire community". A center dedicated to assimilation into America.

Story here
This guy thought ahead. He blocked the back door, came in the front blazing.

Five people with gunshot wounds were being treated at Wilson Medical Center in Johnson City, according to hospital spokeswoman Christina Boyd.

The wounded ranged in age from 20 to their mid-50s, and their conditions ranged from stable to critical, she said.

Sounds like this guy just went in, firing on any and everyone. He killed himself afterwards. We probably will never know the real reason (in his mind) on the 'WHY'.

Gee, I wonder if someone had the ability to have a concealed weapon in New York and in the building to assist, if there would had been less senseless deaths.

You gotta be kidding me. I guess it shouldn't come to any surprise.

April 1, 2009 – Harold Koh, the former dean of the Yale Law School has been picked by President Barack Hussein Obama to be the legal adviser to the Department of State. Koh will represent America at the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

Koh is an outrageous transnationalist lawyer who believes that American law should be interpreted according to international “norms” instead of our U.S. Constitution.

In 2007, at a speech before the Yale Club in Greenwich, he claimed that he didn’t see why Shariah law couldn’t be applied to govern cases in the United States. Shariah law is a ruthless Islamic legal system that calls for stoning of women who are victims of rape; for cutting off heads and hands of adulterers; and death for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion.

As TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty has stated: “Shariah is counter-Constitutional, based on Islamic principles which favor Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women and children. Rights are dispensed unequally according to religion and gender.”

Koh also wants American law to be subjugated to international law and to the International Criminal Court. He suggests pushing a “transnational legal process” in the U.S. that will “generate legal interpretations that can in turn be internalized into the domestic law of even resistant nation-states.”

TVC warned about Koh back in November when he was being touted as a possible Supreme Court nominee. At that time, Lafferty described him as a “committed pro-abortionist who views the Constitution as an etch-a-sketch tablet. Koh thinks that the meaning of the Constitution is whatever a judge of U.N. resolution says it means.” Koh is clearly willing to give away our national sovereignty.

He wants “human rights advocates” to litigate in domestic courts as well as international courts to bring out rulings that will subvert American constitutional government.