Quote

We of this land have so much to be grateful for. The God above us has been good to us from the very beginning of this Republic. With the duties which rest upon us, we have much to pray for – what we may, as a nation, be just in our strength, wise in our actions, and faithful in our trust.

                                                                                            Lyndon B Johnson, 36^th U.S. President

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

By Todd Starnes

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.”
The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.
Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.
“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”
Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.
The conservative website CitizenLink was the first to report about the controversy. They interviewed a 17-year-old girl who was one of students who walked out of the auditorium.
“The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control,’” she told CitizenLink. “he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”
As the teenagers were walking out, Tuttle said that Savage heckled them and called them “pansy asses.”

The executive director of the National Scholastic Press Association provided Fox News with joint statement from the Journalism Education Association that was sent to members – after a number of people complained about Savage’s remarks.

“We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address,” the NSPA wrote. “some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.”
The NSPA said they did not have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech and that wish “he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists.” They also said it provided a “teachable moment” for students.
As for Savage’s attack on people of faith?
“While some of his earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions,” they wrote.
However, not once did the NSPA or the JEA offer any apologies to the students or faculty advisors or anyone else in attendance.
Candi Cushman, who writes a blog on CitizenLink, noted the irony.
“Using profanity to deride the bible – and then mocking the Christian students after they left the room — is obviously a form of bullying and name-calling,” she wrote. “This illustrates perfectly what we’ve been saying all along: Too many times in the name of ‘tolerance,’ Christian students find their faith being openly mocked and belittled in educational environments.”
Tuttle said that he “felt duped” by the event. “There were Christian schools who went to the conference. To have this happen was disappointing and shocking.”
And for some of his students – they felt like the anti-bullying activist was in fact – the bully.
The NSPA said they should have done a better job preparing schools for what to expect.
Here’s the full statement provided by the NSPA and JEA:
“We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address at the JEA/NSPA spring convention in Seattle. Logan and I have had the opportunity, both in Seattle and by email, to hear from advisers who are passionately against and passionately supportive of the choice to invite him to speak.
Many who expressed concern said they were surprised by the content of the speech, and they wished JEA and NSPA had done a better job of preparing them for what was to be expected. This is a fair critique. When we invited Savage to speak, we asked that he discuss his “It Gets Better” project, which has been an unprecedented social media campaign that relates quite directly to high school students. He agreed and turned over details to his speaker’s bureau contact.
We did not have a prior transcript or outline of Savage’s speech (nor did we for any other speakers), and of course the question-and-answer portions of our keynotes can become unpredictable. Yet Savage has appeared regularly in the news media, so we were familiar with his general background and the broad range of viewpoints he has made publicly. That said, we wish he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists.
Which brings us to the second chief concern some attendees have made, which is the fact that some actually felt hurt by Savage’s comments, especially those aimed at religious beliefs. While some of his earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions.
Some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this we want to make our point very clear: While as journalists it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear. They left quietly, peacefully, without trying to draw attention to themselves. They did not try to interrupt the speaker or loudly protest his remarks.
We have already heard from some advisers who have turned this into a teachable moment for their students. Dan Savage and his “It Gets Better” project are legitimate newsmakers, and we encourage you to reflect on this topic in your newsrooms. Some student newspapers have already written stories for their publication regarding his speech, and others are sure to write columns or editorials regarding his viewpoints. What are the coverage opportunities for your students?
As a whole, we were very pleased with all of the educational opportunities at the Seattle convention and we hope our attendees feel the same. As always, we love to hear both the darts and laurels regarding all of our convention programming, including the keynotes.”

Quote

You will see, as you make your rounds, that this Nation was established by men who believed in God. You will see that our Founding Fathers believed that God created this Nation. And I believe it too. They believed that God was our strength in time of peril and the source of all our blessings.

                                                                                               Harry S Truman, 33^rd U.S. President

Quote

Democracy is first and foremost a spiritual force. It is built upon a spiritual basis - and on a belief in God and an observance of moral principles. And in the long run only the church can provide that basis. Our founders knew this truth - and we will neglect it at our peril.

                                                                          Harry S Truman, 33rd U.S. President

Obama Nearly Doubles the Number of Bush Fundraisers

February 28, 2012  By Lonely Conservative

Every time you hear President Obama whine about Republicans playing politics, keep this in mind: He’s on pace to nearly double the number of fundraisers former President Bush held at the same stage of his reelection campaign. As Paul Bedard noted, Obama is the fundraiser in chief.

President Obama has many names, but this week, as he reaches 100 donor events since announcing for reelection last April, he’s the “fundraiser-in-chief.”
According to several counts, the Big 100 will come Thursday when he does four fundraisers enroute to collecting and spending $750 million to $1 billion for his reelection. So far since April 2011, he has raised an estimated $82 million to $100 million at those events.
Former President George W. Bush, who in May 2003 announced his reelection campaign a month later than Obama at this stage of his presidency, had attended 56 fundraisers at this time, according to CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, the unofficial keeper of White House statistics. In a tweet Tuesday, he added: “Pres Obama will do four reelection fundraisers in NYC Thursday, bringing fundraising total to 100 since filing for reelection last April.”
The Republican National Committee, which also closely charts the president’s totals, said that Knoller’s numbers are correct. And, they added, the total number of White House fundraisers is much higher when factoring in those hosted by first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Both did a few last week alone.

The good news is, despite the number of fundraisers he’s had, the numbers are down when it comes to contributions.

Fundraiser-in-chief: Obama's 100 vs. Bush's 56 donor events

The Examiner February 28, 2012 -- 3:59 PM


President Obama has many names, but this week, as he reaches 100 donor events since announcing for reelection last April, he’s the “fundraiser-in-chief.”

According to several counts, the Big 100 will come Thursday when he does four fundraisers enroute to collecting and spending $750 million to $1 billion for his reelection. So far since April 2011, he has raised an estimated $82 million to $100 million at those events.

Former President George W. Bush, who in May 2003 announced his reelection campaign a month later than Obama at this stage of his presidency, had attended 56 fundraisers at this time, according to CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, the unofficial keeper of White House statistics. In a tweet Tuesday, he added: “Pres Obama will do four reelection fundraisers in NYC Thursday, bringing fundraising total to 100 since filing for reelection last April.”

The Republican National Committee, which also closely charts the president’s totals, said that Knoller’s numbers are correct. And, they added, the total number of White House fundraisers is much higher when factoring in those hosted by first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Both did a few last week alone.

An analysis of the fundraisers shows that Washington, San Francisco and New York have been the site of most of Obama's events. Washington commuters had an up close meeting with the president’s efforts Monday when downtown traffic was stopped at 6 p.m. after he left the exclusive Jefferson Hotel after meeting with 25 supports who paid $35,800 each at the joint Obama for American-Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

Obama may be working fundraisers as hard as former President Bill Clinton, but the numbers aren’t fantastic. In January, he didn’t raise as much as he did in 2008, with contributions to Obama and the Democratic National Committee down 30 percent, according to a Boston Globe analysis. After those numbers came out, Obama flip-flopped and pushed donors to give to his “super PAC.”

Obama Outpacing Clinton, Bush on Fundraising Events

December 1, 2011 by Special Report

President Obama is outpacing his predecessors quickly when it comes to fundraising events. According to CBS, the president’s total for the year is 69 fundraisers. Bill Clinton had 21 at this point in his third year in office, while George W. Bush had 41.

Vandals hit church with conservative views on homosexuality

By Patrick Preston KATU News and KATU.com StaffPublished: Apr 25, 2012 at 1:03 AM PDT


PORTLAND, Ore. - Vandals attacked a Southeast Portland church known for its conservative views on homosexuality, and church leaders said the damage is in the thousands of dollars.

Someone taking responsibility for the damage sent an email to local media, claiming the vandalism at Mars Hill Church on Southeast Taylor was the work of a gay rights group.

The vandals broke century-old stained-glass windows.

"We heard these loud, startlingly loud, noises," said neighbor Annie Winn, who watched from across the street. "We jumped out of bed and looked out the windows here, and these black figures were running past the church and throwing rocks at the windows as they went."

She spotted at least six vandals dressed in all black running away after shattering at least nine windows.

"It saddens us that some folks feel they had to vandalize our space to be heard. But we wish them no ill will," said lead pastor Tim Smith.

The Seattle-based church, known for its strict views against homosexuality, attracted protests when it opened in Portland last year.

Smith said vandalism won't stop the church as members work to define Mars Hill by more than what they are against.

"I disagree with the church on that issue. But I completely disagree with the vandalism as a response to that," Winn said.

The destruction is actually bringing church critics and supporters together.

"I needed to make it clear that they were not speaking for me as an openly gay man, as a Christian, as a pastor," said Rev. Nathan Meckley, with the Metropolitan Community Church.

Meckley felt compelled to help clean up despite his disagreement with Mars Hill. He's encouraged his church now has a running dialogue with Mars Hill members.

"The fact that we are actually meeting with one another and know one another, I feel, sincerely, that we are beginning to understand one another in a completely different way," he said.

Mars Hill leaders say the church is not antigay, but they also are not flexible in their beliefs on sexuality.

Police say vandals also hit a nearby bank but at this point investigators aren't aware of a connection.

Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

By Todd Starnes

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.
The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.
According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”
Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”
Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”
“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”
He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.
“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.
Robert Noland, of the Kansas Family Policy Council, said the law would extend well beyond allowing access for gay weddings.
“They (churches) could not deny renting space to a gay couple if they want to have a party,” he told Fox News. “This is just another example of government creating a law imposing upon the freedom of religion and basically telling churches what they can and can’t do.”
So what could happen to churches in Hutchinson that refuse to accommodate gay parties or weddings?
“Unless the city council includes an exemption for churches, it would generate a discrimination complaint for the gay couple and it would be investigated,” Dye told Fox News. She said any churches found guilty of violating the law could be subjected to fines or other penalties.
Gary Ridge, an associate pastor of Westside Baptist Church, told Fox News their congregation would not comply with the proposed law should it pass. He said their church would refuse to host either gay weddings or parties – even if it meant a possible investigation or fines.
“We apply the Bible to our lives,” he said. “When there is a contradiction between what the city council asks and what the Bible says, we are going to follow the Bible.”
“This is an opportunity for the LGBT community to cram their belief system down on our community,” Ridge said. “It may look like a small step, but it’s not the end. Before you know it they will be able to shut down churches for preaching Romans 1:26-27. We’ll be sued for refusing to have homosexual weddings.”
Ridge said Hutchinson is a conservative city, a part of the Bible Belt – and he blamed the controversy on outsiders.
“This is part of a bigger desire to have their lifestyle condoned and accepted,” he said. “We don’t condone their activity.”
The Hutchinson measure would also have a major impact on private businesses and landlords. Restaurants, bars and retail shops would be required to provide special bathrooms for individuals who may have male body parts but identify as a female.
According to a FAQ sheet provided by the city, employers would also be forced to allow workers to dress based on their gender identity. Read the entire FAQ sheet by clicking here.
“Dress codes would not be precluded as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee’s gender identity and gender expression,” the FAQ stated.
As far as bathrooms, the city FAQ stated, “A transgender person must be allowed to use restrooms appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth without being harassed or questioned.”
The city’s revised ordinance would also require transgender individuals to use the locker room and shower facilities of their choosing.
Another issue for Hutchinson’s Christian community involves workplace discrimination. The policy dictates that business owners or landlords are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
That’s a problem for Michael Brockman, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church.
“I know a couple who owned a bed and breakfast in Kansas City,” he said. “They decided to shut down because they could see that they were going to be forced to make decisions that might have legal effects upon them. They might be sued if they didn’t rent their facility out to a gay couple who might want to use it.”
Staver said it’s unfair that Christian business owners might have to make decisions about their future.
“You shouldn’t have to choose between participating in the marketplace, running a business or operating a church on the one hand and accepting the LGBT agenda on the other,” Staver said. “This is a battle that is coming. This is a culture divide I think we will see play out across the country.”

Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals

President takes routes around congressional Republicans blocking his agenda

By Charlie Savage
New York Times

WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.     “We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”
For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.
But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress’s attempt to prevent him from having White House “czars” on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama’s increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor’s administration: Mr. Bush’s frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture.
“Obama’s not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute,” said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. “But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago.”
The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended their right to enact it.
In the following months, the administration increased efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions through environmental regulations, gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls, and refocused deportation policy in a way that in effect granted relief to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Each step substituted for a faltered legislative proposal.
But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration’s broader political messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course.
First, he proposed a jobs package and gave speeches urging lawmakers to “pass this bill” — knowing they would not. A few weeks later, at the policy and campaign strategy meeting in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the president told aides that highlighting Congressional gridlock was not enough.
“He wanted to continue down the path of being bold with Congress and flexing our muscle a little bit, and showing a contrast to the American people of a Congress that was completely stuck,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a deputy chief of staff assigned to lead the effort to come up with ideas.
Ms. DeParle met twice a week with members of the domestic policy council to brainstorm. She met with cabinet secretaries in the fall, and again in February with their chiefs of staff. No one opposed doing more; the challenge was coming up with workable ideas, aides said.
The focus, said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was “what we could do on our own to help the economy in areas Congress was failing to act,” so the list was not necessarily the highest priority actions, but instead steps that did not require legislation.
Republican lawmakers watched warily. One of Mr. Obama’s first “We Can’t Wait” announcements was the moving up of plans to ease terms on student loans. After Republican complaints that the executive branch had no authority to change the timing, it appeared to back off.
The sharpest legal criticism, however, came in January after Mr. Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process to install four officials using his recess appointment powers, even though House Republicans had been forcing the Senate to hold “pro forma” sessions through its winter break to block such appointments.
Obama declared the sessions a sham, saying the Senate was really in the midst of a lengthy recess. His appointments are facing a legal challenge, and some liberals and many conservatives have warned that he set a dangerous precedent.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, who essentially invented the pro forma session tactic late in Mr. Bush’s presidency, has not objected, however. Senate aides said Mr. Reid had told the White House that he would not oppose such appointments based on a memorandum from his counsel, Serena Hoy. She concluded that the longer the tactic went unchallenged, the harder it would be for any president to make recess appointments — a significant shift in the historic balance of power between the branches.
The White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, said the Obama administration’s legal team had begun examining the issue in early 2011 — including an internal Bush administration memo criticizing the notion that such sessions could block a president’s recess powers — and “seriously considered” making some appointments during Congress’s August break. But Mr. Obama decided to move ahead in January 2012, including installing Richard Cordray to head the new consumer financial protection bureau, after Senate Republicans blocked a confirmation vote.
“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama declared, beneath a “We Can’t Wait” banner. “When Congress refuses to act and — as a result — hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”
The unilateralist strategy carries political risks. Mr. Obama cannot blame the Republicans when he adopts policies that liberals oppose, like when he overruled the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to strengthen antismog rules or decided not to sign an order banning discrimination by federal contractors based on sexual orientation.
The approach also exposes Mr. Obama to accusations that he is concentrating too much power in the White House. Earlier this year, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, delivered a series of floor speeches accusing Mr. Obama of acting “more and more like a king that the Constitution was designed to replace” and imploring colleagues of both parties to push back against his “power grabs.”

But Democratic lawmakers have been largely quiet; many of them accuse Republicans of engaging in an unprecedented level of obstructionism and say that Mr. Obama has to do what he can to make the government work. The pattern adds to a bipartisan history in which lawmakers from presidents’ own parties have tended not to object to invocations of executive power.
For their part, Republicans appear to have largely acquiesced. Mr. Grassley said in an interview that his colleagues were reluctant to block even more bills and nominations in response to Mr. Obama’s “chutzpah,” lest they play into his effort to portray them as making Congress dysfunctional.
“Some of the most conservative people in our caucus would adamantly disagree with what Obama did on recess appointments, but they said it’s not a winner for us,” he said.
Mr. Obama’s new approach puts him in the company of his recent predecessors. Mr. Bush, for example, failed to persuade Congress to pass a bill allowing religiously affiliated groups to receive taxpayer grants — and then issued an executive order making the change.
President Bill Clinton increased White House involvement in agency rule making, using regulations and executive orders to show that he was getting things done despite opposition from a Republican Congress on matters like land conservation, gun control, tobacco advertising and treaties. (He was assisted by a White House lawyer, Elena Kagan, who later won tenure at Harvard based on scholarship analyzing such efforts and who is now on the Supreme Court.)
And both the Reagan and George Bush administrations increased their control over executive agencies to advance a deregulatory agenda, despite opposition from Democratic lawmakers, while also developing legal theories and tactics to increase executive power, like issuing signing statements more frequently.

 |The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.

“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
But Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration, said the Obama administration’s pattern reflects how presidents usually behave, especially during divided government, and appears aggressive only in comparison to Mr. Obama’s having been “really skittish for the first two years” about executive power.
“This is what presidents do,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “It’s taken Obama two years to get there, but this has happened throughout history. You can’t be in that office with all its enormous responsibilities — when things don’t happen, you get blamed for it — and not exercise all the powers that have accrued to it over time.”

CBO estimates Obama's 2013 budget plan would hit economic growth

The Hill
By Erik Wasson - 04/20/12 12:02 PM ET

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Obama’s 2013 budget will hurt the economy in the long term, arguing the larger deficits it would produce would reduce the amount of capital available to businesses.
After five years, the CBO says, the Obama proposals would reduce economic output by between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent.

Larger deficits caused by the budget would cause the government to issue more bonds, sucking up private capital to finance its debts and thereby reducing the funds businesses could use to expand and hire, the CBO said. An increased tax on capital gains included in the president's plan would also tend to reduce private capital, it says.

The 2013 Obama budget proposes continuing the Bush tax rates for the middle class and enacting elements of a short-term Jobs Act stimulus. In the near term, actions such as these could increase growth by as much as 1.4 percent, CBO says.
The new CBO report complements a March estimate that Obama’s budget would add $3.5 trillion to deficits over 10 years compared to current law. That report did not try to capture any effects on economic growth.
The White House, using a different baseline than CBO, has claimed its budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over 10 years.

Taking economic effects into account, Obama’s budget could add as much as $3.9 trillion in deficits by 2022, CBO estimates. Slower economic growth tends to increase deficits by reducing tax collection and increasing spending on items like unemployment insurance.

In analyzing the Obama budget's effect on deficits and economic growth, the CBO compares it to a "current law" baseline that assumes large deficit reduction from, for example, allowing all of the Bush tax rates to expire and doctor payments from Medicare to be slashed.
Congress is unlikely, however, to allow all of the Bush tax rates to expire, because Obama and lawmakers in both parties want to extend the Bush rates for households with annual income less than $250,000. Republicans want to extend all of the Bush rates, or to lower tax rates.
Similarly, Congress has regularly enacted a "doc fix" to prevent cuts to physician Medicare payments.
The White House emphasized the baseline issue in its reaction to the report.

"CBO is using a current law baseline, which is not considered to be an accurate reflection of the fiscal picture," a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget said. The official emphasized that compared to a more realistic baseline, the Obama budget helps growth.

"In addition, under CBO’s estimates of what would happen if we continued business as usual, the economy would be worse off if we did not pursue the Administration’s economic growth and deficit reduction policies," the official said.
Under the current law baseline, CBO estimates tax hikes and spending cuts would hurt growth in the short term. But by shrinking deficits, it would help economic growth in the long run, the CBO says.
Republicans seized on the new report.
“CBO’s report confirms what millions of Americans already know from experience: the president’s failed policies impede job creation, stifle economic growth, and ensure a diminished future,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement.
"It’s official: President Obama’s idea of a ‘balanced approach’ leads to an unstable economy," said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "This CBO report confirms the president’s policies will hurt long-term job creation and economic growth, and proves we have to do everything possible to stop Washington from spending money it doesn’t have, get control of our debt, and get government out of the way."

Reid Halts Budget Process; No Vote Likely Until After Nov. Election

by Wynton Hall

American families make and live by a budget. But not the Congress.

Thursday marks the 1,086th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget plan, despite the fact that doing so merely requires a simple majority vote. Yet Sen. Harry Reid's decision to kill the Senate mark-up process this week ensures that the United States Senate will not pass a budget until after the November election. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said Wednesday:

“The effective cancellation of this mark-up puts in crystal focus that the Senate’s Democrat leadership is determined to go to November without ever bringing a budget to the floor… They have proven themselves unable to meet the defining challenge of our time. But if Republicans are honored with a Senate majority next year, we will conduct a real mark-up and we will pass an honest budget. And it will change the debt course of America.”

A "mark-up" is a process wherein a congressional committee debates on voting amendments while adding and removing language to a provision.
Republicans on Capitol Hill believe Sen. Reid made his last-minute decision to stop the budgetary mark-up because the process would have forced Senate Democrats in tight races to make difficult political choices that might undermine their chances at reelection.
"The decision to kill the mark-up came as a total surprise," said one Budget Committee staffer in an interview with Big Government. "Sen. Sessions was literally in his office working on amendments when he saw Chairman Conrad on TV announcing that the process would no longer go forward."
Despite Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) contention that he modeled the Democrat's plan after the Bowles-Simpson plan, a closer look at the Senate Democrats' plan may reveal why Sen. Reid stopped it from proceeding, as the plan contained huge tax increases with no net cut in spending. Specifically, the Democrats' plan included:

• $2.6 trillion in tax hikes
• Spending that would grow at twice the rate of inflation
• Debt increases by more than $8 trillion that would make the U.S. total debt $23 trillion by the end of 2022
• Mandatory spending growth at 3 times the rate of inflation

Sen. Sessions blasted Senate Democrats for playing politics with the nation's purse at a time when the United States is facing an unprecedented $15+ trillion debt.

It is clear that, in addition to being unable and unwilling to publicly defend a plan of any kind, Senate Democrats also did not want to conduct a mark-up because they would have been compelled to cast votes on and defend the president’s fiscally ruinous health law that they supported, as well as the widespread taxpayer abuse and waste exemplified by the GSA. As for Chairman Conrad’s plan, it is easy to understand why Senate Democrats don’t want to vote on it, even in committee: it contains $2.6 trillion in tax increases ($600 billion more than the president’s plan), it contains not one penny of spending cuts, and it produces $8.2 trillion in new gross debt. It is one more-tax-and-spend plan, like the president’s budget. Never in recent memory has a majority party in Washington been more inadequate to meet the great challenge of our time than Senate Democrats now leading this chamber.”

With Republicans seeking to regain control of the U.S. Senate, the long timeline of budgetary inaction by Senate Democrats may now hold electoral consequences, as Sen. Reid's last-minute maneuverings can only be seen as cynical Machiavellian politics of the most irresponsible kind.

Quote

Our young men are going into the professional fields because they don't 'feel called' to the mission field. We don't need a call; we need a kick in the pants. We must begin thinking in terms of 'going out', and stop our weeping because 'they won't come in'. Who wants to step into an igloo? The tombs themselves are not colder than the churches. May God send us forth.

                                                                                                           Jim Elliot

Dem. Senator: Obamacare 'Cost Obama a Lot of Credibility as a Leader'

9:46 AM, Apr 19, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Democratic senator Jim Webb, who is retiring after the election, said yesterday morning that Obamacare "cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader." The Washington Post reports:President Obama’s new health-care law will be his greatest liability as he attempts to once again win the critical swing state of Virginia, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) warned Wednesday.“I’ll be real frank here,” Webb said at a breakfast organized by Bloomberg News. “I think that the manner in which the health-care reform issue was put in front of the Congress, the way that the issue was dealt with by the White House, cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader.”Webb voted for the law, but also for more than a dozen GOP-offered amendments to it.“If you were going to do something of this magnitude, you have to do it with some clarity, with a clear set of objectives from the White House,” added Webb, who opted not to run for a second term this year. “...It should have been done with better direction from the White House.”

Vanderbilt Says Christian Club Can’t Require Leaders to be Devout Christians

By Todd Starnes

Vanderbilt University has informed a small Christian student organization that it will no longer be recognized as a student group because it requires its members to have a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, according to email correspondence provided to Fox News.
“It just shows how radical the Vanderbilt administration has become in enforcing a policy that is nonsense,” said Kim Colby, senior counsel for the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “A lot of jaws dropped when we saw how far the Vanderbilt administration was taking this.”
Colby told Fox News the Christian group did not want to be identified because “they just don’t want to be caught in the crossfire of the culture wars.”
The group reached out to the Vandy chapter of the Christian Legal Society so others would know what had happened, Colby said.
“They are a small group of students who want to gather together and worship God,” she said. “That’s basically all they want to do.”
According to email correspondence from the university, the group’s constitution was not approved because the university took issue with a requirement that leaders have a “personal commitment to Jesus Christ.”
“Please change the following statement in your constitution,” a university official wrote to the group.
The original statement read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”
The university directed the group to change the statement to read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”
Ironically, Vanderbilt University was founded as a Methodist institution established for the purpose of practicing – among other things – theology.
University Provost Richard McCarty told The Tennessean that their policy “is about rejecting discrimination and not about restricting religious freedom.”
But isn’t that exactly what they’ve done to the small Christian group by telling them they can’t have leaders who have a commitment to Jesus Christ? Or for that matter, how is the university’s email not an intrusion into the freedom to practice religion?
The university released the following statement to Fox News in connection with the unnamed Christian club:
“We respect our students’ rights to hold and practice their religious beliefs. Our nondiscrimination policy does nothing to restrict those rights, nor does it limit these religious organizations’ ability to choose their own leaders. We require only that the groups be open to all Vanderbilt students and all members in good standing must be allowed to offer themselves for leadership. The groups themselves select their leaders. The policy allows leadership requirements such as length of membership, attendance, level of active participation and certain performance-based criteria, such as GPA for honor societies. Any groups whose leadership requirements don’t comply with our nondiscrimination policy are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their application.”
Colby said the student group has decided not to comply with the university’s demands.
“They’re going to leave campus rather than take those five words out of their constitution,” Colby told Fox News.
Colby said it’s becoming clear that Vanderbilt University is specifically targeting Christian organizations.
“Any students have to be concerned about what an administration that’s being as radical as the Vanderbilt administration has been might do,” she said. “There’s a lot at stake for students when they stand up against their administration.”
This is just the latest in a string of controversies over Vanderbilt’s newly revised non-discrimination policy. At least 13 Christian groups have decided to defy the ban. Two groups, including Vanderbilt Catholic, have already announced plans to leave campus rather than conform to the university’s new policies.
The Tennessee Legislature is also jumping into the controversy. State Rep. Bill Dunn told Fox News it’s clear that Vanderbilt “has a policy that attacks religious organizations on campus.”
He drafted legislation threatening to block the policy because even though Vanderbilt is a private institution, it receives some public money.
“Some people have book sense and other people have common sense,” he said. “I think Vandy has gone with what the liberal elite would like to see and they aren’t using the common sense God has given them.”
Dunn’s drafted amendment would allow Vanderbilt to have an ‘all-comers’ policy, but it would have to be applied evenly to every student group – including fraternities and sororities.
The Tennessean reported that fraternities and sororities are exempted because of federal Title IX regulations that apply to gender issues.
“It shows the hypocrisy of Vanderbilt University,” Dunn said. “They know they can pick on Christian groups and it won’t affect their donors. But if they go after fraternities and sororities they realize it might hit them in the pocket book.”
Colby said it’s a very difficult time for Christians on campus.
“It makes me very sad,” she said. “We used to have religious liberty — where people understand that religious groups having their leaders agree with their faith was not only permissible and protected, it was common sense. And we’ve lost a lot of common sense in this country.”

Quote

It is clear that we can no longer count on the Constitution alone to protect fundamental freedoms in the United States........

                                                                           Anthony D Romero, ACLU Executive Director

Quote

The American Union will last as long as God pleases. It is the duty of every American Citizen to exert his utmost abilities and endeavours to preserve it as long as possible and to pray with submission to Providence "esto perpetua". 

                                                                             John Adams, 2nd U.S. President

Quote

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding  generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, hells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.

                                                                                                  John Adams, 2nd U.S. President

Quote

In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.

                                                                               Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President

Quote

That Book (Bible), Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests.

                                                                                     Andrew Jackson, 7th U.S. President

Quote

We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic...(W)here we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.

                                                                 Franklin D Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. President

Quote

The more profoundly we study this wonderful Book, and the more closely we observe its divine precepts, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be our destiny as a nation.

                                                                                William McKinley, 25th U.S. President

Connecticut Constitution Preamble

The people of Connecticut acknowledge with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

                                                                       Connecticut Constitution Preamble

Quote

God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard it and defend it.
                                                                               Daniel Webster

Quote

If we do not hold to our faith in God, we cannot prevail against the dangers from abroad and the fears and distrust that those dangers create among us here at home.
                                                                           Harry S Truman, 33rd U.S. President

Quote

Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.

                                                                        

                                                            Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President

Obama's Budget: 'Interest Payments Will Exceed Defense Budget' in 2019

 The Weekly Standard LLC

 12:36 PM, Apr 5, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

The latest chart from the Senate Republican Budget Committee, pointing out that under President Obama's budget, the U.S. government will be spending more in 2019 to pay the interest on the national debt than it will be to defend America:

There's always hope!!

Never give up. Pray pray pray and then pray some more. Revival is possible. This country is falling fast, but with God nothing is impossible. Now is certainly not the time to give up. Get down on your knees and fight like a man!

2 Chronicles 7:14-15

New International Version (NIV)

 ¹⁴ if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. ¹⁵ Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.

Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address

By Todd Starnes

President Obama did not include any reference to God during his weekly address titled, “On Thanksgiving, Grateful for the Men and Women Who Defend Our Country.”
His remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God.
The president said his family was “reflecting on how truly lucky we truly are.”
For many Americans, though, Thanksgiving is a time to reflect on how blessed and thankful they are.
The president said the “most American of blessings” is the “chance to determine our own destiny.”
He called the very first Thanksgiving a “celebration of community”
“We’re also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay,” he said. “This sense of mutual responsibility – the idea that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper – has always been a part of what makes our country special.”
The president said that belief is “one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured.”
But nowhere in the 11-paragraph address does he mention the Almighty.
Instead, he references the Civil War, two World Wars, and the Great Depression – noting that “Americans drew strength from each other.”
However, President Abraham Lincoln said the nation drew its strength from God. He declared as much in his 1863 Thanksgiving Day proclamation:
“I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.”
President Obama told the nation in his address that if they support each other and look out for each other, “and remember that we’re all in this together, then I know that we too will overcome the challenges of our time.”
You can read President Obama’s entire address below:

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The White House

From my family to yours, I’d like to wish you a happy Thanksgiving. Like millions of Americans, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will spend the day eating great food, watching a little football, and reflecting on how truly lucky we truly are.
As Americans, each of us has our own list of things and people to be thankful for. But there are some blessings we all share.
We’re especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas. To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families: the American people are thinking of you today. And when you come home, we intend to make sure that we serve you as well as you’re serving America.
We’re also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay. This sense of mutual responsibility – the idea that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper – has always been a part of what makes our country special. And it’s one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured.
The very first Thanksgiving was a celebration of community during a time of great hardship, and we have followed that example ever since. Even when the fate of our union was far from certain – during a Civil War, two World Wars, a Great Depression – Americans drew strength from each other. They had faith that tomorrow would be better than today.
We’re grateful that they did. As we gather around the table, we pause to remember the pilgrims, pioneers, and patriots who helped make this country what it is. They faced impossible odds, and yet somehow, they persevered. Today, it’s our turn.
I know that for many of you, this Thanksgiving is more difficult than most. But no matter how tough things are right now, we still give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny. The problems we face didn’t develop overnight, and we won’t solve them overnight. But we will solve them. All it takes is for each of us to do our part.
With all the partisanship and gridlock here in Washington, it’s easy to wonder if such unity is really possible. But think about what’s happening at this very moment: Americans from all walks of life are coming together as one people, grateful for the blessings of family, community, and country.
If we keep that spirit alive, if we support each other, and look out for each other, and remember that we’re all in this together, then I know that we too will overcome the challenges of our time.
So today, I’m thankful to serve as your President and Commander-and-Chief. I’m thankful that my daughters get to grow up in this great country of ours. And I’m thankful for the chance to do my part, as together, we make tomorrow better than today.
Thanks, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Air Force Removes ‘God’ From Logo

By Todd Starnes

A Virginia lawmaker is calling on the Air Force to reverse a decision to remove a Latin reference to “God” from a logo after an atheist group complained.

Rep. Randy Forbes, (R-VA), said the Air Force removed the logo several weeks ago from the Rapid Capabilities Office. The patch included a line written in Latin that read, “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.”
But after the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers complained, Forbes said the line was rewritten in Latin to read, “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”
Forbes, along with a bi-partisan group of 35 lawmakers, sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz expressing concern over the decision to remove a non-religious reference to God.
“It is most egregious,” Forbes told Fox News. “The Air Force is taking the tone that you can’t even use the word ‘God.’”
Forbes said his office contacted the Air Force and officials there confirmed that the logo had been changed after the atheist group complained.
A spokesman for the Air Force told Fox News they had received the letter and would investigate the claims.
Forbes said the removal of “God” is a “bridge too far in terms of the rights of men and women who serve in our services and their ability to express their faith.”
“But the significance of this is what the Air Force is saying with this move – that the word ‘God’ – whether it has any reference to faith or not, can’t be used in the Air Force,” Forbes said.
He said the incident is one of several in recent months that have caused him to wonder if the military is cleansing itself of religious references.
“It’s a very dangerous course to take,” he said.
“I am concerned that the RCO capitulated to pressure from an outside group that consistently seeks to remove references to God and faith in our military,” he said. ‘The RCO’s action to modify the logo sets a dangerous precedent that all references to God, regardless of context, must be removed from the military.”

Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event at Ft. Bragg

By Todd Starnes

Atheists are using a music video that celebrates the burning of churches and synagogues to promote an upcoming atheist-themed festival at Fort Bragg.
“Rock Beyond Belief” is scheduled to be held on the parade field at Fort Bragg in March. The event was created in part as a response to a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association event that was held last year.
Justin Griffith, who organized “Rock Beyond Belief,” said he was personally offended that a Christian evangelical event like “Rock the Fort” was held on the base.
“We felt it was entirely inappropriate for anyone to say your current religion is wrong,” Griffith told Fox News& Commentary. “We view all soldiers as already spiritually complete. Whatever their current religious preference is has no bearing on how fit they are as a soldier or anything related to military business.”
Griffith confirmed the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water.
There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses.
The website Christianfighterpilot.com was the first to raise questions about the music.
The website labels the song as the “atheist anthem.”
Among the lyrics: “Love how the burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.”
The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.”
Griffith said that particular song would not be performed at the festival, but defended the video of burning churches.
“You can buy their albums in Wal-Mart, a Christian-friendly store,” Griffith said. “If you have issues with bands that sometimes have swear words, or naughty words, or shocking imagery, that’s a part of the First Amendment.”
Benjamin Abel, a spokesman for Fort Bragg told Fox News & Commentary that they were launching a review of the bands scheduled to perform along with their content.
“This is a family-friendly event and we expect the entertainment will meet the standards of decency that would be typical on a top-40 music station,” Abel said. “We owe it to our soldiers and families on post to make sure it is.”
As for the graphic, anti-Christian lyrics – Abel said “I would have to think we would have to take a very close look at that kind of lyric.”
“I don’t know how family-friendly that is,” he said.
Griffith said there is absolutely no controversy about Aiden’s upcoming performance.
“It’s a little shocking to hear some of this stuff,” he said. “I’m sure you understand that these types of shocking things are not going to be front and center for a rock concert that is on a military base. This is not controversy. This is not a real story.”
But if that’s the case, why is there a video of the band performing in front of burning churches on the “Rock Beyond Belief” website?
The military could not answer that question.
“I can’t speak to somebody’s website,” Abel said. “We are reviewing the material and will ensure that event organizers understand that we will have to hold them to a certain level of decency.”

School Removes “God” From Lee Greenwood Song

By Todd Starnes
Parents at a Massachusetts elementary school are furious after educators first removed the word ‘God’ from the popular Lee Greenwood song, “God Bless the U.S.A.” and then pulled the song all together from an upcoming concert.
Fox 25 in Boston is reporting that children at Stall Brook Elementary School in Bellingham were told to sing, “We love the U.S.A.” instead of “God Bless the U.S.A.”
After parents started complaining, school officials removed the song from the school assembly concert. The school’s principal released a statement to Fox 25 stating they hope to ”maintain the focus on the original objective of sharing students’ knowledge of the U.S. States, and because of logistics, will not include any songs.”
Greenwood released a statement to Fox News condemning the school’s actions.
“The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title ‘God Bless The USA,” Greenwood said. “Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course, would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song.”
Greenwood said the phrase “God Bless the USA” has a “very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming into our country.” He said it’s also played at every naturalization ceremony behind the national anthem.
“If the song is good enough to be played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children,” Greenwood said.
An online poll taken by the television station indicated more than 80 percent of viewers were outraged by removing God from the song.
“I don’t have a problem with the song if somebody else does I guess it’s there business,” resident Patrick Grudier said. “I mean It’s on our currency (God).”
But not everyone agreed – including parent Matthew Cote.
“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with changing the song,” he told the television. “It’s a public school. If you want to have the word God in the song, go to a private school.”
Reaction on Facebook has been overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional patriotic song.
“Here we go again, more war on Christianity,” wrote one Facebook user. “You can remove God all you want, but the good news — there is still a loving God and He lives.”
Another Facebook user called it sad and disgusting. “I’d like to say unbelievable — but it is so totally believable.”
LEE GREENWOOD’S STATEMENT TO TODD STARNES
“Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song. The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title God Bless The USA. We can’t take God out of the song, we can’t take God out of The Pledge of Allegiance, we can’t take God off of the American currency. Let us also remember, the phrase God Bless the USA has a very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming to our Country. The song is played at every naturalization ceremony behind The National Anthem. If the song is good enough to played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children.” – Lee Greenwood

Watchdog finds Solyndra loan was 'rushed'

Published April 04, 2012

| Associated Press

Federal financial experts weren't consulted on a half-billion federal loan to a failed solar company until the last minute, and only then had "about a day" to complete their review, an internal watchdog concluded Wednesday.

The report from the Treasury Department's inspector general found that the department's review was "rushed" and began only after the Energy Department was poised to sign off on the terms of a $528 million loan to Solyndra Inc. The review was completed a day before Energy issued a press release saying it was approving the loan with conditions.

Treasury officials complained to the White House that regulations governing federal loan guarantees say that the department should have been involved earlier in the process, but the inspector general said it was unclear whether the review's late start violated the law.

Treasury officials also told investigators that the shortened time frame was sufficient to review the loan. But investigators found no evidence that concerns raised by those officials, such as the debt-to-equity ratio in the project, were ever addressed by the Energy Department.

The investigation is the latest to look closely at the Obama administration's decision to back Solyndra. Congress also is examining the deal, which was used to showcase the economic stimulus bill's support for renewable energy projects and so-called green jobs.

Solyndra was the first renewable-energy company to receive backing from a loan program created by the stimulus bill. But last year it declared bankruptcy and laid off more than 1,000 people.

The company's implosion and revelations that it received preferential treatment from federal officials have become an embarrassment for the Obama administration and a focal point for GOP criticism of the president's green-energy agenda.

While the Energy Department approved the loan, and taxpayers were on the hook when it failed, the Treasury Department's Federal Financing Bank was the entity that actually disbursed the money.

Internal emails obtained by the inspector general suggest that Treasury officials' concerns at the time the loan was granted were dismissed in order to get it out the door.

"DOE says their hands are tied on this issue...They are under pressure to complete a deal," one email read.

Another said: "We pressed on certain issues...but the train has really left the station on this deal."

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., two Republicans leading the congressional investigation into the Solyndra loan, issued a joint statement Wednesday saying that the report shows "Solyndra was a bad bet from the beginning that was rushed out the door while every red flag was ignored."

Emails obtained by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee last year showed that the Treasury Department was also concerned that a later restructuring of the Solyndra loan could violate federal law. The loan was restructured in February 2011 so that private investors moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment on part of the loan in case of a default.

Administration officials have defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash, Solyndra would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work. Even with the federal help, Solyndra closed its doors Aug. 31, 2011, and let all its workers go.

Man sues after being restricted from passing out Bibles at gay pride parade

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published April 04, 2012

FoxNews.com

A man who has passed out Bibles at a Minnesota gay pride parade for years is suing after city officials restricted him from giving out the book at this year's event.

Brian Johnson, of Hayward, Wis., started handing out Bibles at the Twin Cities Pride Festival in 1995, and three years later, gave out the books in Minneapolis' Loring Park from a booth approved by parade organizers. But in recent years, the people behind the event, which draws as many as 300,000 people, have tried to oust him, first nixing his bid for a booth and then having him arrested in 2009.

Johnson, a taxidermist by trade and an evangelical by calling, sat out last year's event for fear of arrest, according to his attorney. But the legal wrangling has continued behind the scenes, and this year parade organizers, at the suggestion of a federal judge, designated "free-speech zones" on the Pride Festival grounds, where people like Johnson could distribute literature the organizers wouldn't otherwise approve.

Johnson and his attorney reject the policy, which is backed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Johnson believes he not only has God on his side, but the Constitution, too.

A spokesperson for the city board said officials don't comment on pending litigation.

"Johnson believes that the Bible is God's word and sets out a plan of salvation for all people," his attorney wrote in a 26-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court of Minnesota. "Johnson believes the Bible teaches that all people are sinners and therefore deserve God's wrath, but anyone can receive salvation by believing and trusting in Jesus Christ."

Johnson was arrested for trespassing at the event in 2009, the first year he was denied a booth. The charges were later dropped. In 2010, the board, which enforces regulations at the 42-acre public park, granted Johnson permission to hand out Bibles. The parade organizers went to federal court to seek an injunction, which was denied by District Judge John Tunheim.

Although Johnson and his family went to the 2010 event and handed out Bibles without incident, the city agency and parade organizers were focused on a suggestion Tunheim had offered in a footnote of his denial of the injunction. For 2011, they set up the "free speech zones" that Tunheim thought would be a reasonable suggestion and a "drop box" where people could place literature.

Johnson skipped last year's event, but went to federal court on Friday to file a suit he hopes will give him unrestricted access to this year's event.

Dot Belstler, executive director of Twin Cities Pride, said Johnson is free to attend the festival and "tell everyone that Jesus loves them." But she said Johnson will not be allowed to hand out Bibles outside of the designated zones during this year's event on June 23-24.

"He has said his goal is to get everyone to know Jesus [and] he is allowed to do that," Belstler said. "[But] it's really kind of a nuisance."