ITS OUR AMERICA!

I always have liked Maxine...

CLICK ON THE GRAPHIC

A Cornerstone of American Freedom

This excellent article is by Janet Ellen levy and appears on American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_fight_to_bar_arms.html

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.

Notes:
[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, http://www.international-alert.org/pdf/pubsec/BB-Briefing161.pdf
[iv] Fourteen Senators Call for U.S. Involvement in United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty, December 5, 2006, http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-un-small-arms1205.htm
[v] International Arms Trade Treaty Aim of Draft Resolution, Press Release, General Assembly, GA/DIS/3335 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gadis3335.doc.htm
[vi] Reviewing Action of Small Arms 2006: Assessing the First Five Years of the U.N. Programme of Action, Biting the Bullet, IANSA, 2006, http://www.international-alert.org/pdfs/red_book_2006.pdf
[vii] NRA-ILA 2006 Firearms Fact Card, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
[viii] The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-168, Title I, Sec. 101, http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
[ix] Crime in the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1976-1991 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
[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

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

Teach Your Children Well

One of my buddies and fellow fighter against the scourge of liberalism on http://www.irv2.com/ 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.

Roll Call of Senators voting for Federal $$ for/against Stem Cell Research

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN5:
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.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00127#state

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: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/stem-cells

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.

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..

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
Amen

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

Nancy Pelosi-Sleeping with the Enemy

Nancy Pelosi – Sleeping With The Enemy?
April 01, 2007 02:00 PM EST
Michael John McCrae
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23959.html

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. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover040407.htm

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!

"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.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

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.

http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=85f4735e-cb13-4922-82a2-0b838ea922ae

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....

Reality Check for UAW Leaders

Ron Gettelfinger, UAW President. In a fire and brimstone speech that would have been appropriate 20 years ago, but is woefully out of touch with today's realities, Ronnie G. told 1,500 UAW representatives who were gathered in Detroit that "Our union does not want to strike, but when employers act as if collective bargaining is a one-way street, not a two-way street, then we will do what we have to do."

Strike? Ahem, Ron, we hate to break it to you, but your side of the "two-way street" has been blown-up for good. You can do the rabble rouser routine for the short-term gratification it brings from your back-slapping membership, but it's all just sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.

The question before you and your membership, despite your out-of-touch posturing and grandstanding is this: Would you rather have jobs with reduced wages and benefits - or no jobs at all? It's a clear-cut decision that seems to be totally lost on you, Ron, but you and your membership better get religion real soon, or it's going to get much worse - with no "better" any where to be seen.

As a recent GM retiree I could not agree more with the "Autoextremist" http://www.autoextremist.com/page6.shtml

I hope that Mr. Gettlefinger is only making noise for the benefit of the Union kool aid drinkers or all of us GM employees and retirees are in big trouble!

One Step Closer to the Road

Well today's my birthday and today is the day the FOR SALE BY OWNER SIGN goes in the yard!

I decided to wait until my birthday as a symbolic gesture that selling my house will my birthday gift to me!!

BTW I also won, at the Home& Garden show 4 free hours of moving from the local moving company!

Now I usually don't win free stuff so I am taking as a sign...

However I am not fooling myself.

Selling by owner in a buyers market is a REAL challenge!

I have done all I can to prepare my house and have a marketing plan.

The rest is in the Lord's hands and I will give Him all the glory for the sale, knowing the difficulty.

However I will plug the site where my house is listed: http://www.owners.com/

So if your looking for a house or know someone looking for a house, I know a great one listed there!!

Although, its kinda ironic that your house will never look better than when you are selling it! Almost makes ya want to keep it....almost

But the road beckons and I am itching to answer!

More to follow...

The Joy of being Retired

Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting.

Well, for example, the other day I went downtown and went into a shop. I was only in there for about 5 minutes and when I came out there was a cop writing out a parking ticket. I went up to him and said, "Come on, man, how about giving a retired person a break"?

He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. I called him a "Nazi." He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having worn tires. So I called him a "doughnut eating Gestapo." He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing a third ticket.

This went on for about 20 minutes. The more I abused him, the more tickets he wrote. Personally, I didn't care. I came downtown on the bus and the car that he was putting the tickets on had a bumper sticker that said "Hillary in '08."

I try to have a little fun each day now that I'm retired.

It's important to my health.

GOP checks Granholm!

GOP slices budget, rejects 2% excise tax YIPEE!

BY KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN (AP)

LANSING — Senate Republicans on Thursday passed a $34-per-student cut for schools, then voted for hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to local governments, community corrections, health care and other programs after deciding Gov. Jennifer Granholm's proposed spending rollbacks didn't go far enough.

The cutbacks are unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled House or be approved by the Democratic governor.

The GOP cuts are "bad for Michigan citizens," see below for some of these "bad" cuts Granholm's spokeswoman said. Senate Republicans also voted down Granholm's proposed 2 percent tax on most services. Thank goodness! GOP to the rescue!
Granholm wants to bring in more tax revenue through the tax, A liberal wanting to raise taxes? ZZZZZZZZ which would start June 1 and raise about $1.5 billion a year.

"We've been listening to the citizens of the state who've repeatedly said 'no' to new taxes," said Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester. Yet they voted for Granholm? Tis a mystery
The Senate took up the tax bill Thursday and defeated it on a 22-16 vote. Sen. Glenn Anderson of Westland was the only Democrat who voted against it. Good for Senator Anderson

About the only place where Granholm and Senate Republicans saw eye-to-eye was on an executive order she issued Thursday afternoon. It included $344 million in cuts and other changes, which would cover more than one-third of the $940 million shortfall in the state budget.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the order Thursday afternoon. It includes cuts in day care services for children of welfare recipients, long-term care services, training for new prison guards, foster care payments, job training grants, for whom? and the state library. ok I love to read but how many taxpayers actually use the state library on a consistent basis?

Senate Republicans didn't present their final list of $255.3 million in cuts, cutting more fat not tax increases and other changes until 7:30 p.m. Thursday, drawing the ire of Democrats who said they were being given no time to study the cuts before being forced to vote on them.

It was the first time Senate Republicans had revealed their entire list of cuts after insisting that the shortfall be dealt with through spending cuts and other changes. Granholm criticized Republicans for relying only on cuts and accounting changes to fill the gap, Gee wouldn't it be nice if when you got in a pinch you could just go over to your neighbor and demand money? However as a responsible adult, you make the necessary cuts and changes needed to pull yourself out of debt. Why shouldn't we expect the same from our elected officals??a criticism echoed Thursday night by Sen. Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor.
"I'm not surprised it took you so long to unveil these cuts," she told GOP senators. "I'd be embarrassed, too."

The Republican plan would restore money to avoid state police layoffs, ok now this is a "crucial service" but took aim at other programs that have drawn GOP ire: An investment fund intended to encourage the growth of high-tech and biotech businesses; the Healthy Michigan Fund intended to improve residents' health; and state subsidies for adult home care workers in some counties.

Community health workers' wages would be cut, and welfare and food stamps would be reduced. I don't eat for free, do you? Its a reduction. The statutory portion of state revenue-sharing payments to cities and villages would drop nearly 10 percent. So it will up to local citizens of these cities and villages to determine where to cut their own fat. Many state departments, the Legislature and the judiciary would be cut 4 percent.

Bishop said he realizes some of the proposed cuts are unpopular but added: "We cannot afford everything we want." Could we shout this from the rooftops!!!

It's unclear if Democrats, who control the House, will approve the governor's executive order. Dan Farough, a spokesman for House Democrats, said the caucus and Granholm are united in wanting a broad solution that will head off year-after-year budget bailouts.

The state faces a shortfall of at least $1 billion in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. But yet the Democrats are unclear?! But how Thursday's executive order fits into that equation is not as clear, at least within the 10-day timeframe that the House Appropriations Committee has to vote on it.

"Whether the executive order is passed in the current timeline or is incorporated as part of an overall, complete solution is still being decided," Farough said. Oh yeah we can afford to stall while you liberals try to cook up a new way to slip in a tax

House Speaker Andy Dillon, a Democrat from Wayne County's Redford Township, said during a Thursday news conference with Granholm that he plans to offer fresh ideas See comment above when House Democrats draft their plan in the next month to deal with this year's deficit and the budget for the next fiscal year.

He wouldn't say if they'll support the service tax, although most Democrats say a tax increase of some kind is needed to protect crucial state services. Ok who sees daycare for welfare recipients and the state library as a "crucial state service"?

Senate Democrats repeated that criticism during the debate on the per-pupil cuts, which reduce total school aid by about $57.4 million.
"We should be thinking about we can invest in public education, not how we can take money away from kids in public education," said Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor. Are you kidding? Michigan spends more than the national average on education and is fourth for teacher's salary! Good grief, parents should be demanding more results considering the money they spend now!

Republicans countered that it was a small amount for schools to have to make up in the two months remaining in the school year and that a tax increase this budget year was unacceptable. AMEN! Some districts have warned they'll have to lay off teachers if their state aid is cut at this point in the school year.

The decrease would drop the minimum per-pupil grant from $7,085 to $7,031, although some school districts now get more than $12,000 per student. That's $12,000, per student taxpayers!!! Holy Moly! It's unlikely the cuts to K-12 schools will pass the House or be approved by Granholm.

The Senate plan would resolve most of the $377.4 million shortfall in the $13.1 billion school aid budget by making accounting shifts in how retirement funds are counted and refinancing debt. Now were talking! Granholm hates this as she is beholding to the teacher union and MEA, and most of any new increases in funding for education would never see the classroom but would instead go for funding teacher's pensions. It also would make small cuts in categorical grants and in support for intermediate school districts.

The school spending bill passed 20-18, mostly along party lines. Sen. Roger Kahn of Saginaw was the only Republican to join Democrats in voting against the bill. BOO Sen. Kahn

Granholm's executive order also postpones millions of dollars in payments to universities and community colleges, and changes the way the retirement of their employees and state workers are calculated for accounting purposes.

Mike Boulus of the Presidents' Council, which represents the 15 state universities, said schools could deal with delayed state support until the new budget year starts Oct. 1. But he's a little worried about whether the state's ongoing budget woes will enable it to pay the money then.
"It's a small price to pay to help the state — if in fact we get our money back in October," Boulus said. "If we don't, that could be an issue."

Well at Lansing Community College they could start by cutting some of the inane classes and then require students to take American history and government to get their Associates Degree instead of ridiculous core classes like"diversity in the work place"

When Liberals Attack

Vandals struck Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers’ Lansing offices Monday night, (3.18.07)slopping red paint on the building, spray-painting slogans on the sidewalk and gluing the front door lock shut.

Large globs of red paint covered a sign on the front of the building displaying the congressman’s name.

A “Support our Troops” sign also was hit with red paint.

A poster pasted to a window facing Michigan Avenue read,

“Rogers: There is blood on your hands.”

Radical moonbats must not have heard that Rodgers has backed away from his support of the war in Iraq, saying, "He said he opposed a plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops and said in a speech on the House floor, “We’ve made some devastating mistakes in Iraq.”

I think what this town needs is an another

"Support Our Troops" Rally!

BEFORE you Purchase, Research, Research and Research some More!

I have been researching various kinds and models of RVs and the RVing lifestyle for over a year now. I have learned a lot. However If there is one thing that I would like to impress on those of you thinking of getting into RVing is research, research and research BEFORE purchasing.

Part of my research involved joining various RV Forums. And I can't tell you the stories of regret I have heard because they didn't bother to do their homework prior to purchase!

As I discussed earlier, the main thing for you to settle is what kind of camping do you want to do. Part-time, full time, parks, or boondocking, or both parks and some boondocking?

You need to know that to determine the best kind of RV for you.
If you want to do a lot of boondocking than you won't want a large Class A as you wouldn't be able to get into those remote sites. You would want something smaller and easy to maneuver.

Once you determine your "style" of camping, you can then move on to deciding the model and brand.

As I said RV forums are a great source of information from RVers. You can ask questions about certain models and brands.
Sites like http://www.irv2.com/ and http://www.rv.net/ cover a wide range of topics. In addition, http://www.escapees.com/, a huge national RV club has a Forum also.
Another good source of information is http://www.rv.org/
A RV Consumer group that rates products

Magazines like TrailerLife and Motorhome are good sources of information for the beginner.

Moreover, you can attend RV Conferences. I attended a Life on Wheels Conference http://rvlifeonwheels.com/, "offers present and prospective RVers the opportunity to learn the most up-to-date information about RVs and the RV lifestyle."

I also attended an Escapees Escapades, "week-long seminars on RV living with such a variety of lectures and workshops that even an experienced RVer will come away with new ideas. Although the days are filled with classes, there is ample time to socialize with others who are already living full-time in their RVs."

What is great about these conferences, is that you are meeting not only experienced campers but beginners like yourselve.

However once you start researching you will notice that certain brands stand out as quality and desirable to RVers. And certain companies that stand out for good service.

To name a few, 5th wheels, New Horizons and Excel
Trailers, Bigfoot, Artic Fox, and smaller TTs, Scamp, Casitas
Class C, LazyDaze, Bigfoot and Born Free
Class A, Newmar, Monaco and for ultimate luxury, Prevost
Please don't be insulted if I didn't list your rig. Leave a comment as to why your rig SHOULD be listed!

RV are like cars, there are levels, entry, mid, high end.
Think Cavalier to Cadillac

One rule of thumb that I stick to is don't purchase the entry level product! Go mid-level at least.

Because high quality rigs are of course more expensive, I highly suggest considering purchasing a used rig. Remember that rigs, like cars are a depreciating item. So I believe its a smart move when your just starting out. If you like RVing, chances are that the first rig you purchase won't be your last!

One of the best places to find a good used rig in a brand that you have chosen after doing your research is on owners forums and groups.
Just Google your chosen brand and "owners" or "owners forums", "groups"
And most brands do have owner, Forums or Yahoo groups.
For example, owners of the excellent Class C LazyDaze have a very active and highly informative Yahoo group. Don't be afraid to ask questions!
Most RVers are more than happy to answer a newbies questions especially when its about their chosen brand!

Another advantage to owner Forums and Groups is that they have get togethers that you can attend. You can see the rigs and talk to owners before purchasing.

So more later.......about check lists for new and used rigs

Back to RVing and Selling my House!!

Whew!

Got a little hectic, as there is so much going on in our world that needs moral commentary. Despite what some may try to foster, there ARE moral absolutes, that when violated effect the rest of society.

So anyway back to RVing!

I haven't written much as I am kinda at a stalemate. I need to sell my house before purchasing my rig (RV).

I have been putting the final touches on my house and I will list it in less than 2 weeks! But here is the kicker!

I MUST list as a For Sale by Owner. Now I sold my first house this way and its easy. However this is a much different market, a buyers market. there are lots of houses for sale and most people don't need to look for a FSBO.

Plus, as you may know if you have been reading my posts, Michigan is in a one-state recession. However I am fortunate to live in a community that isn't as effected as some other areas of the state and with a desirable school system.

Sooooooo that means I need to get my house noticed and spend a little more money on advertising. I will list my house on http://www.owners.com/ , which is a pay for service and of course my local and free http://lansing.craigslist.org/

And there are some other good and FREE sites for listing,such as http://www.zillow.com and http://base.google.com

So say a prayer that I sell this summer!
The sooner I sell, the sooner I can buy my rig, truck and start my adventure!

More on RVing later today...

Who Says What’s Right?

I really like the little devotional booklet entitled "Our Daily Bread". http://www.rbc.org/odb/odb-03-13-07.shtml

So many times when I have picked it up to read, the devotional and the Word was just what I needed.

After reading about General Pace's comments on the immorality of homosexuality and the ensuing uproar by homosexuals demanding an apology, I thought this from the little devotional from yesterday (3.13.07) was so appropriate

READ: Romans 2:12-16

Gentiles, who do not have the law, . . . show the work of the law written in their hearts. —Romans 2:14-15

People who reject absolute standards of right and wrong are often inconsistent. When they think they are being treated unfairly, they appeal to a standard of justice that they expect everyone to adhere to.

A philosophy professor began each new term by asking his class, “Do you believe it can be shown that there are absolute values like justice?” The free-thinking students all argued that everything is relative and no single law can be applied universally. Before the end of the semester, the professor devoted one class period to debate the issue. At the end, he concluded, “Regardless of what you think, I want you to know that absolute values can be demonstrated. And if you don’t accept what I say, I’ll flunk you!” One angry student got up and insisted, “That’s not fair!” “You’ve just proved my point,” replied the professor. “You’ve appealed to a higher standard of fairness.”

God has given everyone a conscience to tell right from wrong (Rom. 2:14-15), and His moral standards are written in the Bible.

Every time we use the words good and bad, we imply a standard by which we make such judgments. Biblical values are true for any age, because they originate with an eternal, unchanging God.


God has not left us in the dark
About what’s wrong or right,
For through His works and in His Word
His Spirit gives us light.

—D. De Haan

Only God has the right to define what’s wrong

ACTION ALERT!

As some of you may know Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said in a newspaper article, that he supports, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and furthermore he believes that homosexuality is immoral!

Gen. Pace:

“I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying, through our policies, that it’s okay to be immoral in any way, not just with regards homosexuality. So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by

policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity. And therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with someone else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not — we prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the armed forces.”

Well as you can imagine the homosexual advocates are up in arms and demanding an apology! So far General Pace has said he has no intention of apologizing!! Good for him!! HOORAY for General Pace

I encourage you to e-mail the general your support of his courageous comments and decision here:http://www.jcs.mil/jcs_comment.html

This is my e-mail to Gen. Pace:

Dear Gen. Peter Pace,

I am writing to say I am in COMPLETE SUPPORT of your position on homosexuality. In addition, I applaud your courage in voicing your convictions and your concern on the effect of homosexuality in the Armed Forces

I am asking that you do not apologize for your beliefs on homosexuality. Those beliefs are shared by millions of Americans and supported by the Scriptures.

I am tired of those who voice their believe in the immorality of homosexuality being silenced, while homosexual advocates are given free rein to voice their agenda.

The 1st Amendment guarantees your right to voice your opinion and the opinion of many, including myself, as much as it does the opposition.

It is my sincere hope that PC forces do not force you into apology that is a violation of your beliefs and 1st Amendment rights.
Moreover, many, many Americans hold your same convictions and support them and your right to voice them

Furthermore, I wish to humbly and gratefully thank you for your service to our great country.

GOD BLESS AMERICA
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS

Very Sincerely,

My name
Address
& e-mail

What do Conservatives Believe?

Special thanks to my brother in the Lord, Lyman
(http://www.spiritofallegiance.com/ ) for sharing this excellent article.
These principals are worth more than pondering by anyone who calls him or herself a conservative. They should act as a guideline when determing who a conservative supports for any political office.

Ten Principles of Conservatism
by Terence P. Jeffrey
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18562

As a very political year approaches an end, and a new presidential election cycle looms, it’s a good time for conservatives to step back from partisan politics and reflect on their cause.What do conservatives believe?

Here are 10 principles worth pondering.

1. God’s Law Governs Nations as Well as Men.
The Ten Commandments should not only be enshrined in our courthouses, they should be engraved in our hearts and minds as guides to all behavior, public and private. As the Founders acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, laws and policies that violate the natural law are abuses of government power that must be resisted and reversed.

2. Life Is the First God-Given Right
It’s always wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life. When this principle is abridged, violence escalates. Thus we have aborted 47 million unborn babies in the past three decades, begun to accept euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide, and stand at the threshold of cloning human beings for the specific purpose of killing them.

3. Marriage and Family Come Before the State and Deserve Its Protection
The marriage of one man and one woman is the natural foundation of all human society, and the means by which children ought to be brought into the world and taught the basic values of our civilization. Government has a duty to recognize and protect the family and must not grant alternative relationships the same status and privileges.

4. Freedom of Conscience is the Soul of Liberty
Understanding that freedom of conscience is at the heart of liberty, the Framers protected freedom of religion and assembly in the 1st Amendment. Movements to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual scout masters, or to compel religious individuals or organizations to distribute birth control or abortion drugs against their beliefs, directly attack these freedoms.

5. Private Property is the Servant of Freedom
The more that individuals, families and businesses can acquire and control the goods necessary to sustain and advance themselves, the more autonomy they will have from the state and others who may wish to unjustly restrict their freedom. The free and responsible use of private property tends to create greater wealth and greater freedom for greater numbers of people.

6. Government Dependency is the Seed of Tyranny
The more that individuals, families and businesses are dependent on the state for the goods necessary to sustain and advance themselves, the less autonomy they will have from the state and others who may wish to unjustly restrict their freedom. This is why expanding the welfare state is bad, and Social Security personal retirement accounts, Health Savings Accounts and school choice are good.

7. The Constitution Means What It Says
Believing in the God-given rights of man and understanding the imperfect nature of human beings, the Framers crafted a Constitution designed to protect the former from the latter. Many of the problems in U.S. government would be resolved if the President, Congress and Courts limited themselves and each other to the authority the Constitution actually grants them.

8. Taxes Are Justified Only to Fund Necessary Government Spending
A massive and complex tax code has become a powerful weapon politicians can use to pressure citizens to behave as the politicians, or the interest groups that support the politicians, wish. The correct function of taxation is to equitably collect only that revenue needed to fund the legitimate activities of a constitutionally limited government.

9. National Defense Is Just That
The first duty of the federal government is to defend the American people against foreign enemies. While advancing freedom in the world is good in itself—and, where it prudently can be done, would advance the interests of the United States--ultimately, the mandate for our national leaders is to use whatever moral means they can to carve out that path in our relations with foreign powers that is most likely to lead to enhanced security, prosperity and freedom for this nation.

10. We Should Strive to Give Our Children a Better Country
America is more than just an expanse of territory or a set of laws. It is a culture, whose art, architecture, journalism, music, movies, television, schools and universities, should reflect and reinforce the traditional values that made this country great. We owe this to our children, who will build the America of tomorrow on the foundation of the America we teach them to love today.