Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Thursday, April 19, 2007

A Cornerstone of American Freedom

This excellent article is by Janet Ellen levy and appears on American Thinker

April 19, 2007

The Fight To Bar ArmsBy Janet Ellen Levy

With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech in which 32 people were slain on campus by a lone gunman who turned his weapon on himself, no doubt the clamor to ban personal ownership of guns will be raised again. Yet amidst the grief and anguish over this terrible incident it should be noted that the campus itself had gained a well-known reputation as a "gun free zone."
Virginia Tech earned that reputation from widespread, national coverage arising from the 2005 disciplining of a student who brought a permitted firearm on campus. That reputation was further enhanced in January of 2006, when H.B. 1572, a bill that would have given students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus, was quashed in subcommittee review before it ever got to the Virginia General Assembly for a vote.

Meanwhile, last June, Virginia Tech's governing board passed a violence prevention policy that further strengthened the ban against weapons on campus. With the notoriety of its no-gun policy as a backdrop, the Virginia Tech campus thus ensured that students and faculty were practically sitting ducks, stripped of their ability to defend themselves during Monday's tragic sniper shooting. Who can say if the methodical shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, a senior who was a Virginia Tech student during the 2005 student-disciplining incident, was aware of the school's reputation and took it into account? What can be said, however, is that this most recent disaster, featured prominently on the national stage, underscores for many how necessary is our constitutional right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is exercised by over 40% of American households.[i] Guns are used to ward off criminal threats about 2.5 million times each year, according to John Lott, author of The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime. Indeed, in most defensive gun uses, the gun is not even fired, according to the National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). In only 1% of instances are criminals wounded and in only 0.1% of instances are criminals killed, the NRA-ILA says. Lott argues in The Bias Against Guns that gun ownership prevents crime, while efforts to impede law-abiding citizens' access to guns actually increase crime.[ii] Further, gun controls penalize and endanger law-abiding citizens while criminals continue to acquire guns illegally.

These arguments and the tragedy at Virginia Tech should be borne in mind because, today, efforts to curb private gun ownership are underway at international, national and local levels. Despite our constitutional right to bear arms and American avowal of the importance of guns for self defense, many proposed treaties, court rulings and local measures threaten to take away those rights. With anti-gun forces at work on all these fronts, many more of us could end up helpless like those who me their fate on campus at Virginia Tech. The efforts, outlined below, would not guarantee our safety, but would put all of us at greater danger.
International Efforts to Bar Guns

In the international arena, the United Nations is at the forefront of a global movement to limit worldwide gun production and eliminate private firearms ownership. Total disarmament of civilian populations is the U.N. goal. For the past five years, the United Nations has convened an annual, international gun control summit to discuss strategies to forestall the "proliferation of small arms and light weapons." Participating countries have included Iran, China, Algeria, Nigeria and Bangladesh, among others, as well as anti-firearms, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which have pressured governments worldwide to eliminate civilian gun ownership. Conspicuously absent at the summit were staunch U.S. supporters of the right to bear arms, such as the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Organizations supportive of the right to bear arms often find themselves squaring off against NGOs leading the civilian disarmament movement. These NGOs include "Biting the Bullet Consortium," a joint project of International Alert, Saferworld, the Department of Peace Studies at England's University of Bradford and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). IANSA is a network of over 700 NGOs funded by the Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and others. It works against individual gun ownership in over 100 countries.

Biting the Bullet consortium member, International Alert, has focused its attack, in part, on the very definition of the right to bear arms. The organization has declared that "the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to possess or carry guns. The Second Amendment only protects ‘the right to form militias under the control of state authorities.'"[iii]

Despite five years of effort and failure to reach consensus on international gun control standards, the United Nations, participating countries and NGOs still agreed in July to continue their efforts for five additional years. They seek implementation of the U.N.'s 2001 Programme of Action, whose full title explains its mission, Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. They also seek a worldwide Arms Trade Treaty. Pressure to pass an international Arms Trade Treaty intensified after Oxfam International, Amnesty International and IANSA launched an arms treaty proposal three years ago. In October, their efforts paid off when the U.N. General Assembly voted on the draft resolution. Out of 164 U.N. members, 139 countries voted in favor of the proposal. The United States stood firm and voted against it, despite appeals from U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and 13 other senators that the Administration reconsider its position.[iv]

The resolution charges the U.N. to set up a committee to create "a comprehensive, legally-binding instrument establishing common standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms."[v] The Arms Trade Treaty would impose an international code of conduct on arms transfers and stop the sale of civilian arms worldwide.

The U.N. Programme of Action issues policies and standards for gun production and sales, weapons collection and destruction, and the control of the use of small and light weapons. It also endeavors to control management of the existing stocks of small and light weapons currently used by police, military, private security companies, border guards and other bodies charged with national security responsibilities.[vi]

The United Nations has been instrumental in the collection and destruction of guns in over 60 countries. Weapon destruction has been accomplished through bonfires, steamrolling and dumping of weapons into the ocean. The United Nations has pledged to curtail gun manufacturing, require registration of all weapons and make private gun ownership illegal. It has advanced the view that civilian possession of firearms constitutes a human rights violation and that the United States is negligent for allowing law-abiding citizens the right to decide if they want to own guns for self-defense.

The United Nations has arbitrarily deemed gun ownership to be a privilege, not a right, and has declared American self-defense laws to be human rights violations. Further, the United Nations maintains that there is no universal right to self-defense and that the absence of gun control violates human rights.

According to the U.N. standard, deadly force may only be used in a life-threatening attack as determined by international law.
In 2006, the United States voted against the Arms Trade Treaty, but signed on to the U.N. Programme of Action. U.S. officials of the current administration were unwilling to compromise Second Amendment provisions. Future administrations may be more willing to comply with such a "non-binding" U.N. treaty. Compliance could put the United States at risk of having an unelected, government appointee sign the treaty, have it unwittingly ratified into law by Congress and supersede our Bill of Rights.

As with other international treaties and agreements, democratic governments such as our own and those as in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, will comply with the regulations. Rogue states and third world countries will subvert provisions of the treaty. The world will be unable to force them to comply, in effect, placing us all at the mercy and whim of others bearing guns.

National Efforts to Bar Guns
At the national level, the tactic used by gun opponents has been to heavily regulate and redefine the Second Amendment in the quest to eliminate private gun ownership. Until the beginning of the 20th century and the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to impose federal rules on state governments, police powers were almost exclusively the domain of states, which regulated individual gun ownership. The assault on Second Amendment rights began in 1934 and arose from federal district courts reinterpreting the spirit of the Bill of Rights to enact federal laws curtailing the rights of gun owners and sellers.

The history of federal regulations reveals a gradual increase over time in restrictions on gun sales and ownership. Gun controls began in the early 20th century as part of the fight against organized crime. The first major gun control initiative, the National Firearms Act of 1934, was enacted by Congress to regulate the sale of fully automatic firearms by requiring gun registration and imposing a prohibitive tax of $200 per firearm. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 introduced a federal firearms license for gun dealers and prohibited the sale of guns to convicted felons.

With the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, as well as the 1960's unrest, which included campus violence and ghetto riots, more legislation was enacted, this time focusing on controlling criminal and dissident segments of the American public. The Gun Control Act of 1968 expanded gun-dealer licensing requirements and regulated imported guns. It expanded the list of ineligible gun owners to include drug users, the mentally incompetent and minors. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 established mandatory penalties for gun use in the commission of a federal crime and prohibited manufacture or sale of armor piercing bullets. In 1990, the Act was amended to ban manufacture and import of semi-automatic assault weapons.

Following the attempted assassination of President Reagan, more legislation arose. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 created a five-day waiting period and local law enforcement background checks for all gun purchasers. The law was revised to eliminate the waiting period and the background check is now completed through a national computerized system. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act outlawed manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons, even though assault weapons are rarely used in crime and represent only 2.25% of the total gun stock in America.[vii]
Viewed at the time by gun proponents as a step toward broader controls, the ban expired in 2004.

Clearly, regulation of activities related to the Second Amendment has increased over time. This worrisome trend toward greater regulation directly affects the free exercise of Second Amendment rights. Essentially, over-regulation of a right renders that right nearly impossible to exercise. It is essentially usurped.

Equally worrisome are court interpretations that chip away at the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution limit federal government power and protect the rights of the people, including the right to bear arms. That right has been compromised since 2002 because of inconsistencies between the 5th and 9th federal Circuit Courts of Appeal over interpretations of that right under the Second Amendment.

In a 1999 opinion, the 5th Circuit Court affirmed the constitutional right of individuals to possess firearms through its examination of language in the Bill of Rights. The court stated that the word rights referred solely to the people. It ascribed powers or authority to state governments. Within the Bill of Rights, the court found that the Second Amendment is grouped with three other amendments that deal with individual as opposed to states' rights. The court further examined use of the term the people and deemed it consistent throughout the Constitution to confer the right of individual gun ownership under the Second Amendment.

In 2002, in an attempt to refute the 5th Circuit Court's decision, the 9th Circuit Court argued in Silveira v. Lockyer that the Second Amendment did not refer to individual rights to bear arms but to state rights, despite the fact that no mention of "collective rights" had ever existed in court rulings before the 20th century. Nonetheless, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not give individuals the right to bear arms but protected only a state's right to equip its militia. At the time the Second Amendment was codified, the court said, America's national military consisted primarily of state militias commanded by the president in times of war. The 9th Circuit Court maintained that under this state militia system, Congress would not likely grant funding for training and equipment, thus, the right of states to do so needed to be specified in the constitution.

The contradictory opinions on this issue by federal circuit courts, which often reflect the political views of their districts, mean that the statutes must give differing rights to individuals in different regions of the country. Conceivably, a citizen in the 9th Circuit region doesn't enjoy the same rights afforded to someone living within the 5th Circuit region. By redefining the people referred to in the Bill of Rights as a collective entity, namely, the state, gun opponents can now advance an argument questioning the legitimacy of any right to bear arms.

Yet, to date, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard only five cases related to the Second Amendment and none of the rulings debated the issue of whether the right to bear arms is an individual or collective right.
The Second Amendment opinions all cited the right to bear arms as an individual right of every citizen, along with voting, speaking and assembling, and as exempt from federal government infringement. The high court never linked the right to bear arms with states' rights to organize militias. It also clarified the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect Bill of Right guarantees from abridgement by states. In the most recent case in which the Supreme Court dealt with the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller, the court indirectly reaffirmed Americans' private and personal right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Most likely, the split between the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal will be resolved in the near future by a review and ruling on the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Local Efforts to Ban Guns
At the local level, Second Amendment rights are under attack by anti-gun lobbyists who focus on individual cities and states across the nation and attempt to use municipal actions to restrict Second Amendment rights. Methods include restrictive municipal regulations regarding guns passed by governing bodies, anti-gun ballot measures and government-sanctioned, police confiscation of firearms. Examples of each have occurred in Washington D.C., San Francisco and, shockingly, in post-Katrina New Orleans. No matter what rationale preceded these actions, all effectively suspended the right to bear arms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

In Washington D.C., residents are under the strictest gun restrictions of any major city in the nation as a result of municipally imposed regulations. In 1976, the Washington D.C. City Council passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act. It prohibited ownership of handguns entirely, in effect, disarming citizens and robbing them of the ability to defend themselves in their homes from criminal attacks. It also required registration of all privately owned firearms, such as hunting weapons, and mandated that they be unloaded, dissembled and trigger locked. Further, guns obtained before the 1976 ban could not even be carried from one room to another without a permit. These restrictions at the local level were taken despite guarantees made earlier under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Section 101 of the 1968 Act clearly states that the spirit of the law is not to place "any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes..."[viii]

Yet, Washington D.C.'s strict measures have not deterred crime, the intended rationale for such regulations. The District of Columbia has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation. Interestingly prior to 1976, D.C.'s murder rate was declining, but, following implementation of the 1976 law, the murder rate rose significantly. In fact, between 1976 and 1991, the murder rate climbed to 200%, at a time when the overall U.S. murder rate rose only 9%.[ix] (Ironically, the district ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that the city's police department "is not generally liable to victims of violent criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection...)"[x]

District of Columbia residents are now in the untenable position of having to choose between endangering their lives or breaking the law and illegally owning a handgun.

That firearms discourage crime is a given. A U.S. Department of Justice study found that 40% of criminals changed their minds about committing a crime when the victim was armed.[xi] National Crime Victimization Surveys show that "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all."[xii]

A legal challenge to Washington D.C.'s firearms restrictions is currently underway in Parker v. District of Columbia. Shelly Parker and other parties to the lawsuit are suing for the right to own handguns for home self-defense. The plaintiffs live in an area with rampant drug problems and have been threatened on numerous occasions. They argue in their lawsuit that the city's overtaxed 911 service cannot protect them and that they have no other means to protect themselves apart from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The city's response has been to argue the position taken by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Todd Kim, the D.C. Solicitor General has stated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, that "we interpret the Second Amendment in military terms."

In an attempt to help citizens living in our nation's capitol, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (H.R. 1288) was introduced in Congress by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). They maintained that the mayor and the District of Columbia City Council do not have the authority to pass laws that override the Constitution and infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The bill would end Washington D.C.'s prohibition on using guns for self-defense in the home and conform city gun laws to federal laws. If H.R. 1288 passes, the Parker lawsuit will be dismissed. If not, the Supreme Court will most likely decide Parker v. District of Columbia. A decision on this issue could have broader consequences, since a number of cities nationwide have similar, if less restrictive, firearms regulations passed by municipal authorities.

Cities and states also labor under gun restrictions when anti-gun lobbyists push for ballot measures. In 2005, San Francisco voters approved the nation's toughest ban on handguns, making gun ownership illegal in their city. Proposition H, which required city resident gun owners to turn in their firearms by April 1st, was approved by 58% of voters. The measure made it illegal to buy, sell, distribute or manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city of San Francisco.

However, in June of 2006, Superior Court Judge James Warren threw out the measure and declared that state law governing handgun ownership supersedes any local law. He sided with the National Rifle Association which sued on behalf of gun owners and stated that Proposition H exceeded the powers of local government and intruded into an area regulated by the state.

Another and unexpected, local battle front on gun restrictions can arise from local law enforcement officials. Amidst complete anarchy in post-Katrina New Orleans with looting, carjacking, rapes and random shootings, the police disarmed surviving residents and left them defenseless. No 911 assistance existed at the time and law enforcement was fully engaged in search-and-rescue missions. This locally enforced suspension of Second Amendment rights led to the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013) introduced by Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA). The Act prohibits confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency and protects the right of citizens to bear arms.

But 33 states have emergency powers to suspend the sale and use of guns, and, in some states, authorities can seize guns from citizens who have committed no crimes. The NRA is working to overturn such legislation.
Although some may argue that prohibition of firearms ensures a civilized society, the opposite is actually true.

The Second Amendment, which guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, is the cornerstone of American freedom and independence. It was the intent of the founding fathers to provide American citizens with the ability and responsibility to protect themselves against crime and tyranny. The preservation of a civilized society and a secure democracy depends on a strong citizenry worthy of a government for the people by the people. Curtailing the right of citizens for self-protection violates their civil liberties. A free and democratic America depends on the protection of all of our rights under the U.S. Constitution.

[i] Sourcebook of Justice Statistics Online, 31st Edition, http://www.albany,edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2592005.pdf
[ii] The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, John R. Lott, Regnery Publishing, Inc., March 25, 2003
[iii] Regulation of Civilian Possession of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Biting the Bullet - Briefing 16,
[iv] Fourteen Senators Call for U.S. Involvement in United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty, December 5, 2006,
[v] International Arms Trade Treaty Aim of Draft Resolution, Press Release, General Assembly, GA/DIS/3335
[vi] Reviewing Action of Small Arms 2006: Assessing the First Five Years of the U.N. Programme of Action, Biting the Bullet, IANSA, 2006,
[vii] NRA-ILA 2006 Firearms Fact Card,
[viii] The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-168, Title I, Sec. 101,
[ix] Crime in the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1976-1991
[x] Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d (1981)
[xi] James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, 1986, p. 155
[xii] Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, 1997, p. 171

Janet Levy is the founder of ESG Consulting, an organization that provides consulting services including project management and development, event planning and promotion, and fundraising for conservative political causes

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Now is the Time

The shooting at Virginia Tech, a senseless, stupid, heartbreaking tragedy. Young men and women cut down in the flower of their youth. A stark reminder that we live in a fallen and sinful world and even more solemn reminder of the fragility of life.

As I pray for the families of those young men and women, I cannot help but wonder and hope, did they know Him? Did they accept and put their trust in Him? If so then they are now safe in their Savior's arms and "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain..."
Revelation 21:4

If not, it is now too late to make a choice...

So I pose this question to my readers, if your heart was to stop beating tomorrow could you honestly say you are ready to meet Him?

Do you know Him? Have you searched to know Him, acknowledged, accepted and received Him?

Maybe you have thought about "it," searching, knowing Him
If so Now is the time my friend, Now is the time...
If not, Now is the time my friend, Now is the time...

[Remember your Creator earnestly now] before the silver cord [of life] is snapped apart, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern [and the whole circulatory system of the blood ceases to function];
Ecclesiastes 12:6

All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.
1 Peter 1:24-25

Seek the LORD while He may be found,Call upon Him while He is near.
Isaiah 55:6

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Teach Your Children Well

One of my buddies and fellow fighter against the scourge of liberalism on send me this excerpt from Ronald Reagan's Farewell address..Jan 11 1989. When I read it, I thought of this song that RVers could relate to, by Crosby, Stills & Nash, called "Teach Your Children"

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.
Teach your children well...

Of course the advise Ronald Reagan gives here is not just for RVers.We can all see the results, now days of not teaching your children well. We have "Americans" who are ignorant of the history of their own country. American History isn't even a requirement for a associates degree at the community college I went to for my Paralegal Degree! "Americans" who blame America for the world's problems. "Americans" who believe we should base our safety and foreign policy on what will make us "popular" to our enemies. These are the consequences of an "uninformed generation" that President Reagan warned about.

So let us purpose to teach our children well to be "informed patriots" Educated and grateful for what America IS, a great country, a land of rare and special freedom...

"Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?

Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important -- why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D - day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, ``we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.'' Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

"President Ronald Reagan Farwell Address to the Nation 1/11/89.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Roll Call of Senators voting for Federal $$ for/against Stem Cell Research
S.5 Title: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (41) Related Bills: H.R.3, S.997 Latest Major Action: 4/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 63 - 34. Record Vote Number: 127.
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---63
Akaka (D-HI)Alexander (R-TN)Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN)Bennett (R-UT)Biden (D-DE)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Brown (D-OH)Burr (R-NC)Byrd (D-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Clinton (D-NY)Cochran (R-MS)Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)Dorgan (D-ND)Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)Gregg (R-NH)Harkin (D-IA)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inouye (D-HI)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Lott (R-MS)Lugar (R-IN)McCain (R-AZ)McCaskill (D-MO)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD
Murkowski (R-AK)Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Obama (D-IL)Pryor (D-AR)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Rockefeller (D-WV)Salazar (D-CO)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Smith (R-OR)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Stabenow (D-MI)Stevens (R-AK)Tester (D-MT)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---34
Allard (R-CO)Bond (R-MO)Brownback (R-KS)Bunning (R-KY)Casey (D-PA)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Coleman (R-MN)Corker (R-TN)Cornyn (R-TX)Craig (R-ID)Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM)Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Graham (R-SC)Grassley (R-IA)Hagel (R-NE)Inhofe (R-OK)Isakson (R-GA)Kyl (R-AZ)Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)Nelson (D-NE)Roberts (R-KS)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Sununu (R-NH)Thomas (R-WY)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Voinovich (R-OH)
Not Voting - 3
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)

See if your Senator voted to destroy human life.

Bottom line adult stem cells do not destroy human life AND are much more effective in treating diesaes as the cells can be harvested from the patient or close relative that is a DNA match.

But I guess its easier to vote along your party lines to actually look at the FACTS.

FOR FACTS on stem cells and ethical considerations:

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. She spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Praying for Our Enemies

There are several large RV Forums where I "hang out" at.
Great information about RVing and the lifestyle

I was reading a post today from a Christian couple who had a link to their Blog. On their blog they had an entry entitled "Jerk on the Month". Their pick was Rosie O'Donnell

Now I would have to agree with them however...

The Holy Spirit whispered to me in a still small voice, "Pray for your enemies"

Its so easy to despise some people, they make it easy!
Its easy to label them our "enemy"

But the real enemy is Satan...the Word tell us that we..." For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" Eph. 6:12 (NIV)

Our battle is not with the person but with spiritual forces guiding the person

And we are all sinners,"All have sinned..."

Don't get me wrong, people make choices that influenced their behavior...the Lord gave us all free will..the free will to choose Him and live will according to His perfect will or not to choose Him and be subject to Satan's "suggestions and guidance"

And our enemies influenced behavior does effect us, our society, immorality, abortion, fornication, divorce, sexulization of young children. And political movements and candidates, judicial verdicts effect our everyday lives. We become overtaxed, less secure,appeasements with those who seek our destruction, more government regulation and less personal decision making of our own lives.

And some are truly evil,having choosen it, and I believe our prayers are wasted on them Matthew 7:6, Heb. 10:26 , Matt. 13: 36-38 and needed for their victims

But the facts remain that we are commanded to pray for our enemies, Matthew 5:44

So today I pray for Rosie and Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore and the Clintons
and Sean Penn and George Soros, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan and any other of those I consider an "enemy" of mine and my country by their actions, that the Holy Spirit brings to my remembrance.

And who knows? The early Christians could hardly believe that someone like
Saul could become Paul..

Saturday, April 7, 2007

His Easter Mission, Your Choice

Isaiah 53 (Amplified Bible)

1WHO HAS believed (trusted in, relied upon, and clung to) our message [of that which was revealed to us]? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been disclosed?

2For [the Servant of God] grew up before Him like a tender plant, and like a root out of dry ground; He has no form or comeliness [royal, kingly pomp], that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.
3He was despised and rejected and forsaken by men, a Man of sorrows and pains, and acquainted with grief and sickness; and like One from Whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we did not appreciate His worth or have any esteem for Him.

4Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly] considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [as if with leprosy].

5But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole.

6All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has made to light upon Him the guilt and iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, [yet when] He was afflicted, He was submissive and opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth.

8By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who among them considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living [stricken to His death] for the transgression of my [Isaiah's] people, to whom the stroke was due?

9And they assigned Him a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death, although He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.

10Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief and made Him sick. When You and He make His life an offering for sin [and He has risen from the dead, in time to come], He shall see His [spiritual] offspring, He shall prolong His days, and the will and pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

11He shall see [the fruit] of the travail of His soul and be satisfied; by His knowledge of Himself [which He possesses and imparts to others] shall My [uncompromisingly] righteous One, My Servant, justify many and make many righteous (upright and in right standing with God), for He shall bear their iniquities and their guilt [with the consequences, says the Lord].

12Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great [kings and rulers], and He shall divide the spoil with the mighty, because He poured out His life unto death, and [He let Himself] be regarded as a criminal and be numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore [and took away] the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors (the rebellious).

Do you know Him? The One who suffered and died for you?
You can...

Dear Lord, I confess I have sinned before You and right now, I repent of my sins and accept what Christ did for me on the cross as payment for my sins. I turn my heart and life over to You, Jesus

Just a simple prayer.

If you prayed this prayer and accepted what Jesus accomplished for you on the cross then you are starting a brand new and exciting journey. How do you learn about anyone when first starting a relationship? Talk to them and listen to them.

We talk to Lord through prayer and he talks to us through His Word.

If you don't have one, get a Bible, ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you and His perfect and loving plan for your life as you read!

Find a Bible-believing church (Full Gospel) and make new friendships with your fellow believers. The Lord never intended that we make this journey on our own, we need each other!

May the Lord bless you as you start this amazing and exciting journey as as a member of His family

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Nancy Pelosi-Sleeping with the Enemy

Nancy Pelosi – Sleeping With The Enemy?
April 01, 2007 02:00 PM EST
Michael John McCrae

The Associated Press release was entitled: “White House Doesn't Support House Speaker Pelosi's Visit to Syria, Saturday , March 31, 2007 which began: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
”What is it about Democrats and visiting known sponsors of terrorism?
About the picture of Nancy in her headscarf:

“Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.” (http://www.myway/, 4/4/07).

The father of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the late Hafez Assad, led a regime dominated by the belief that women do not have souls.

Assad originated from the Alawite religious minority, though in essence a sect of Shiite Islam is a world apart from Islam in doctrine and practice.

“The secretive faith—in name indicating followers of Ali, son-in-law of Islam’s founding Prophet Mohammed—also combines elements of Christianity and astrology.” (Apologetics Index).

Peculiar to the Alawites is the belief that women do not have souls.
Politically Bashar Assad is a chip off the proverbial old block. Shaped by his father’s lifetime crusade against Israel, he has steadfastly resisted Israeli and American pressure to abandon support for Hezbollah.

John Kerry is perhaps the most traveled of democrats. Perhaps Nancy is attempting to build her legacy in line with that of Senator Kerry.
Nancy Pelosi wants to have tea and conversation with American enemies. What could she possibly say or do to get the Syrian President to stop allowing terrorists to cross his border into Iraq?

What could Nancy promise to get Syria to stop interfering into the politics of neighboring Lebanon? Could Nancy get Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah?

In actuality, Nancy’s visit will add legitimization to the terrorist government of Syria.
The State Department is quoted: “In our view, it is not the right time to have these sorts of high-profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.”The article continued: “Pelosi toured Jerusalem holy sites Saturday alongside a congressional delegation that included Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress…Her second trip to the Middle East, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.

Pelosi will not be the first member of Congress in recent months to travel to Syria, but as House speaker she is the most senior.”“…a direct affront…” is certainly the plan of Pelosi. She has no other right or reason to be in the Middle East.

This trip is being billed as a “fact finding” mission. Will she find out where all Iraq’s WMDs have been buried? Will she even ask that question? Would she dare ask Assad to get involved in getting the British hostages released from Syria’s good friend Iran?

As the “most senior” member of Congress to visit Syria is she going as an example of America’s diplomatic strength that states “Freedom of Death” or is she going to let Assad know she’ll do everything in her power to force the retreat of America and the victory of Islamic fascism in the nation of Iraq?

It doesn’t seem to matter to Pelosi that she is giving terrorist states legitimacy. The article continued: “White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends." [Syria] is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.”Nancy is not alone in her search for the perfect photo opportunity or her chance at legacy building.
Quoting the article: “Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.

The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas…The speaker is expected on Sunday to address the Israeli Knesset, her first address to a foreign government. She will become the highest-ranking American woman to speak before the Israeli parliament, according to her office.”

It will be interesting to see what types of quotes media will latch onto to make Nancy’s trip meaningful. The article says: “She is expected to discuss "America's commitment to Israel and the challenges facing the two nations in the Middle East," according to a statement.” But the latest in a series of Congressional plans to retreat from the Middle East is hardly supportive of Israel. That America and the Congress in particular refuse to censure Iran’s nuclear plans in favor of appeasement and ineffective diplomacy can hardly give Israel comfort in that such ideas only aid and comfort Israel’s enemies.

Pelosi is also the major player in the attempt to establish a firm run-away date from Iraq. She and her congressional allies want, or rather need America to be defeated in Iraq. It doesn’t matter which Islamic state claims the victory as long as democrats benefit from the polls.

The article said: “Pelosi last week forced legislation through the House that would order all combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008, a measure that resembles legislation approved by the Democratic-run Senate.”
I like that term “democrat-run”.
When Islam declares victory over America I fully expect to see Nancy Pelosi wearing a head scarf in the halls of congress.

She is visiting the states she hopes will bring peace to the Middle East. She is “fact finding”.Upon her return will she share any of those “facts” with the administration that is protecting American interests or will she keep her facts to herself as John Kerry always manages to do?

Mr. Mc Crae had a question mark in the title. I removed it. There is no question. You can't dismiss the actions of Nancy Pelosi as merely "stuck on stupid" here. This is a deliberate attempt to appease the enemies of America and sell out Israel

Lord help us!

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

"Usual Suspects" on SCOTUS Give Nod to "global warming"

The Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, saids that the EPA has a “statutory obligation” to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions

Justice John Paul Stevens writes : 'The harms associated with climate change are serious' and that EPA's political reasons for inaction are illegal, 'arbitrary,' he wrote, 'capricious...or otherwise not in accordance with law.'”

Joining him were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy.

SCALIA, J., dissenting
Unreasonable as to be unworthy of Chevron deference.
* * *
The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.

EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court's ruling.

In the meantime, she defended EPA's voluntary partnerships to reduce emissions. "These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy," Wood said.

Ann R. Klee, who was general counsel at the EPA from 2004 through mid-2006, said the Bush administration's "options are now considerably more limited." She said EPA could still decide not to regulate carbon dioxide, but only if it also concluded that such emissions do not contribute to climate change or endanger public health and welfare.

This could be a good thing causing the EPA to scientifically, PROVE the harm of "greenhouse gases."

The EPA has to get its act together because it will have to PROVE it needs to regulate.
Moreover, the proof had better be conclusive or there will be another court battle in truth

It is my hope that EPA doesn't try to regulate for the simple reason there is NO conclusive scientific evident of "global warming"

However IF they do regulate the repercussions to American business and citizens could potentially be disastrous. How and in what amount would or could be regulated?

Human beings emit one kilogram of CO2 every day just breathing. If the EPA wanted to, it could regulate that based on this ruling. "Your exhalation papers please, citizen."

Will fireplaces be banned?

BTW RV manufacturer requirements could mean smaller engines and higher prices for RVs and gas or if you want a larger RV/engine will you be required to purchase a very expensive carbon offset tax?

We will defintely be hearing more about this....