I've had to pick up the cash
and go shop for a beater. Been looking for "almost anything" under
three grand and reliable. If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what
is.  Online searching brought me to a chuckle and had to share it,
what do you think of this advertizement?

1994 Buick Regal

**edited to add url ** http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070626a.html

Whereas, this nation had been built upon Christian principles and laws by Christian men;

Whereas, freedoms which we the people enjoy had been brought forth by Christianity;

Whereas, the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the
development of the fundamental legal principles of Western
Civilization;

Whereas, there is no clause known to exist in the Constitution of the U.S. which declares a "separation of church and state";

Whereas, the First Amendment refers to the federal government and Christian church denominations;

Whereas, many modern history books deny the Christian commitment of those men who made this nation great;

Whereas, for example John Adams stated, "I always consider the
settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a
grand scheme and design of Providence for the illumination of the
ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over
the earth";

Whereas, the Constitution recognizes "the Christian Sabbath. Article 1,
section 7, says, 'If any bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented
to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it.
. .' This presumes a President would not be employing himself on the
Sabbath Day;

Whereas, in 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court made an exhaustive study of
hundreds of volumes of historical documents and asserted the following,
the U. S. is a "religious people....a Christian nation.';

Whereas, in 1931 the court reviewed the 1892's decision in referenced
to another case and reiterated that we are a 'Christian people';

Whereas, if anyone were to just simply look at the history of this
great nation they would plainly see what influenced and caused this
free society;

Whereas, if this nation changes the foundations of our laws by mixing
in the pluralism of other 'religious cults of the world', we will then
have undermined the one and only nation in which people enjoy life,
individual liberty and property;

Whereas, history is clear that our Founding Fathers had embraced
Christianity as the unofficial yet universally acknowledged religion of
the land. See Ben Franklin's appeal for prayer, George Washington's
Inaugural speech, etc.;

Whereas, when higher discernment in a case of law is needed, then even
a higher law giver is sought for understanding. The Word of God is the
reference for the rule of how we should live and govern ourselves;

Whereas, there is not meant to be a separation of religion and state for they are both to have Jesus Christ as their head;

Whereas, Other religions such as Hinduism or Islam especially, have not
demonstrated a peaceful and orderly nation building which protects the lives nor freedoms
of the people living under their influences;

Whereas, "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." 
Isaiah 8:20;

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this blog declares the following:

There should be, each day in our homes, businesses,
courts, assemblies, and Congress prayers towards our Lord and Savior,
the "one and only true God" of the Bible by whom we have been richly
blessed.

The offering up of prayers by Hindus or by any religion other than
Christianity within the halls of our "governing bodies" during their
opening sessions should not be condoned by the people. It will
eventually wash away the supports of our system of laws and then erode
away our freedoms.

I was greatly disappointed in the election process when I heard that
Ron Paul was excluded from the Forums in Iowa on Saturday June 30th.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/06/ron_paul_exclud.html

So, I just had to write both of the sponsoring organizations. I tried to be kind.

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing this email because of your decision to exclude official viable presidential candidates from a debate forum.

I respect your decisions to hold a forum for debate. It's a great idea,
yet you desire to stack the outcome by cutting off debate. I'm not a
betting man but I would bet that Congressman Ron Paul has committed
more of his life to serving this country than you two. He has proven
himself worthy of both of your standards in supporting reduction of
taxation and supporting Christian conservative principles. How can you
sit back and selectively deny this man a voice? I'm really shocked! It
is what you're there to do isn't it, to provide an outlet so that the
people can decide?

It was very interesting to see the faces of the people in the past
debates debunking him while Paul's on-line polling percentages climbed.
Lets see you explain foreign policy in 30 seconds, get cut off and then
not allowed to give the full picture. I would almost call it
stubbornness and arrogance. Maybe we should be discussing if there
should be any polls at all because of the routing it performs upon the
candidates and manipulating of questions. Lets get honest with the
people and provide a true forum.

I'm a bit frustrated seeing "Christian or conservative" people cut off
candidates who have something to say prior to any primary. I don't
think it's right for you to cut off this man who has possible answers
to the problems of today.  What are you afraid of?

Please reconsider your decision of excluding candidates who are worthy.
You and the media have had their way and have taken this country down
the wrong road because it seems that the people only get the person the
media nominates, what a scam!

Iowa, the state of exclusionaries and no visionaries.

Please, let the unabridged Presidential Forum begin with all the
candidates present including Ron Paul, otherwise you're not true
conservatives. You cut off speech, debate and seem to advocate a form
of affirmative action by selecting candidates while denying that it is
the roll of "the people" to decide.

Is this what your other invited candidates support also?  Are they
for cutting the field so that they have a better chance? I highly doubt
it, let the primaries prune the field, and in the mean time do your
service to the people in an honest way, "the American way."  Maybe
that doesn't exist in the Christian Alliance of Iowa, I can't believe
that either.

Again, I praise your efforts to hold debates. Please reconsider and
have Ron Paul participate otherwise you do appear as one described in
Rom 1:18, "who hold back the truth in unrighteousness;" when you hold
back ideas perceived by some to be right, and you do it wrongfully.

Respectfully submitted,

As I stated on June 2nd, this is a much needed amendment. If there isn't an easier way lets get it rolling today!!

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the
United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor
persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents
and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years
after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`Section 1. Any person born after the date of the
ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is
a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent
allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United
States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.

`Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

This book was mentioned to me a number of years ago. I couldn't find it
locally anywhere nor until after a "diligent" search on the web. 
Finally, one
became available from an online resale bookstore, it's dated 1864. I
purchased it for a good sum of money and ended up handing it over to
a pastor as a present from his congregation.  It has been
dissected, scanned and now properly reprinted and for sale. The one I
purchased probably does not exist anymore. As it is said, to become a
new work
one has to die first.



This book is titled "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil
Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and
Historical Annals of the Republic."  By B. F. Morris.


From the Preface:
"The documents and facts are authentic, and have been collected, with
laborious diligence, from standard historical works and from the
political and Christian annals of the nation. The volume is the voice
of the best and wisest men of the republic. It must, therefore, have
weight with the American people, and be a political and Christian
thesaurus and text-book to the scholar, the teacher, the patriot, the
politician, the statesman, the jurist, the legislator, the divine, and,
in a word, to all classes of American citizens."


From the first chapter:
"Christianity
is the principal and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid
foundation, of all our civil institutions. It is the religion of the
people,--the national religion; but we have neither an established
church nor an established religion. An established church implies a
connection between church and state, and the possession of civil and
political as well as of ecclesiastical and spiritual power by the
former. Neither exist in this country; for the people have wisely
judged that religion, as a general rule, is safer in their hands than
in those of rulers. In the United States there is no toleration; for
all enjoy equality in religious freedom, not as a privilege granted,
but as a right secured by the fundamental law of our social compact.
Liberty of conscience and freedom of worship are not chartered
immunities, but rights and duties founded on the constitutional
republication of reason and revelation."

    The theory and
faith  of the founders of the civil and political institutions of
the United States practically carried out these statements. They had no
state church or state religion, but they constituted the Christian
religion the underlying foundation and the girding and guiding element
of their systems of civil, political, and social institutions. This
proposition will be confirmed by the following summary of historic
facts, which have an extended record in the various chapters of this
volume."

This book has over 1000 pages of terrific documentation and facts.

Well, I really don't think they do anymore and haven't for years. The
Republican party headed by Bush exemplifies the idea of
compromise,  to angering their electorate, the undermining the
constitution, and indifference to historic precedence of the United
States immigration policies.

Outside of a few, for example such as Ron Paul, most of the Republican
party has fallen away quite far from the rule of law. They anger the populous and put this nation
in peril of creating favoritism to La Raza or "The Race". The deluding
of the Law in this country is becoming rampant and with 12,000,000
people looking to receive amnesty it will become such a flood of
deluding its demise will be at hand and mockery will only follow. Lord knows
we have plenty of it already.

Our Senators seem to take unto themselves the law, they are ruling as
if they are autonomous and have no ears. Who needs the Constitution or constituents!!
The Republican party seems so lost, Bush is lost, there is nothing
holding them together. They seem to seek to do what is right in their
own eyes, and forget the authority which is over them, the people and
the constitution. The popular Republican pundits just march blindly to the band
of "scary" and evil men. 

"Edited" to add names of pundits: Mark Belling, Michael Medved, Hew
Hewit, Dennis Miller, Michelle Malkin, Hannity, Gary Bauer just to name
a few which I actually have heard. For example, they all supported
Judge Souter, and look what that got us.  Many of us tried to warn
them but to  no avail, because "they know better than us."

There is a glimmer of light in the party with Ron Paul and a couple
others, but
it gets dimmed by Republican plundits (surprise!) with ad homenim attacks, ridicule, then completely
ignored without honest discussion so that the people may decide.

The Constitution Party has excellent positions on the perils and pluses
of this great U.S. of A.  I just want to post their position on
Immigration here for us now.

======
Immigration

We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United
States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal
government to guard and to protect those borders, including the
regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into
the country.

Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many
illegal aliens enter the United States. These immigrants - including
illegal aliens - have been made eligible for various kinds of public
assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal
services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having
a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of
government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax
burden, and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of
people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the
American worker and the labor balance in our country.

We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the
immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.

We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in
extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances,
until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be
discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to
protect against terrorist infiltration.

We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which
requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis,
be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for
such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence
of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore
immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants
will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of
health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose
an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of
the United States.

We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other
taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice
of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents
while in this country.

We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

We oppose bilingual ballots. We insist that those who wish to take part
in the electoral process and governance of this nation be required to
read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship. We
support English as the official language for all governmental business
by the United States.
source = http://www.cpow.org/platform.html#37

======

Lets get it together and call our Senators. Don't let them get away with botching this AGAIN!! Lex is Rex!!!

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I just found another reason not to like Microsoft. If it were not
enough to put up with "blue screens" of death and questions on my
screen such as "Your PC has a hung process and will restart, OK?" or
from support says, just upgrade and reboot you'll be fine (again) I now
have to put up with their funding the attacks upon my hunting rights.

http://www.bowsite.com/menu/NEWS/GETNEWS.CFM?ID=1614

Article states....

Microsoft Funds the Anti-Hunting Movement

Microsoft has rejected a U.S. Sportsmens Alliance request to
abandon its partnership with the nations leading anti-hunting
organization.

ARLINGTON, VA - Rudy
Giuliani’s record on illegal immigration is out of step with the
majority of Americans. As mayor of New York, Mr. Giuliani filed a
lawsuit to prevent city officials from arresting illegal immigrants. He
also denounced a law that prohibited welfare benefits, Social Security
and free tax-payer funded medical care for noncitizen, and lobbied
the U.S. Congress to change it.

“On illegal immigration, Rudy
Giuliani is more like Ted Kennedy than Main Street America,” said Ron
Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder.

In contrast,
Congressman Ron Paul has long taken the lead against illegal
immigration. He voted for a border fence between the U.S. and Mexico
and strongly opposes amnesty. Congressman Paul has introduced
legislation to end birthright citizenship. He has also sponsored
legislation to bar individuals from countries on the U.S. terror watch
list from receiving student visas, since several of the 9/11 terrorists
were here on expired student visas.

“When you compare Rudy
Giuliani’s immigration record as a mayor to Congressman Ron Paul’s
record as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 10 terms,
the difference is clear,” continued Snyder.

Source - http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/

====

I'm in much agreement with the ending of the birthright citizenship.
It really has only been established thus far because there has not been any challenge
to it in the courts...until soon I expect. It
is such a "wrongful motivating loophole" in our immigration law.

We have to ask ourselves, "What have the other candidates
done?"  What has that new guy coming into the race, Fred Thompson,
done during his years in the Senate? Have the others stood and then
compromised? I'm a bit tired of these civil magistrate not standing and
defending our Constitution.

Even the praised pro-gun Fred Thompson doesn't match Ron Paul.

"Thompson's actions at that time were somewhat haphazard"

"In total, GOA tracked 33 votes in the U.S. Senate while Thompson was there. He voted pro-gun 19 times (out of 33)."

Source - http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

Maybe Fred is "acting" to be a conservative while Ron Paul seems true to the cause.

Went to a public hearing on a Wisconsin senate bill. Kept hearing from the
sponsor of the bill, "This is not a gun control bill, it's about
closing a loophole."

So, if I were to sell a gun to my brother and I fail to conduct a
firearms back ground check on him for $35.00, I would be guilty of a
Class G Felony. I would then loose my right to own or use guns.

So via this bill any and all personal sales of guns would be burdened
with an individual having to find a gun shop to do a back ground check
for them. What price will they say they need to charge? The state says
the charge is at least $30 with an allowance of a $5 dollar charge
levied by the gun shop.

And they still say this is not a gun control bill?

This would be enforced across the entire state of Wisconsin pretty much
squelching the individual's free market. I thought we were a "free
people"!!

SB104, have your Wisconsin senator vote against it.

What does it really mean, "shall not be infringed"?

In the Republican debates Presidential Candidate Giuliani stated that Presidential Candidate Ron Paul was absurd.

Lets see if we understand the issues and the reality behind why Giuliani states this.

1. Giuliani supports the Federal Government to fund the execution of children in the womb.  Paul does not.

2. Giuliani supports gun control and has the following position.

"In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss nationalgun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recentlypassed, but argued that it didn't go far enough." - Gun Owners ofAmerica 

Mean while Ron Paul has a wonderful track record of supporting freedom and our gun rights.

"Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore theSecond Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:

• the Brady law;
• the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
• the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among otherattacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferedfirearms);
• participation in UNESCO -- which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
• the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
• federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and,
• the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004)."

Source - Gun Owners of America

3. Giuliani's immigration stances are questionable if not absurd.

While Ron Paul's stance is to secure our borders nor would he support any amnesty program.

4. Ron Paul wears men's suits to special events.



While Mayor Giuliani prefers something else?

Meet "Girly-Mahn" Gulie Giuliani. ( fyi...This is NOT PHOTOSHOP )




Who is calling who absurd?

Another absurdity is the debating foriegn policy in 30 second rallies.


Respectfully submitted,

Todd H.