Prayer requests.

We had a LOT of prayer requests this morning at church click here .

My sermon was entitled "Heaven on Earth" click here to see the outline.

It seems like we have been under fierce attack from Satan lately.

One of the songs that we sang in the congregational singing today was particularly encouraging to this preacher's heart. It was written by Martin Luther and was entitled "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" One line specifically that blessed my heart was, "The Prince of darkness grim, we tremble not at him. His rage we can endure, for lo! his doom is sure. One little word shall fell him." AMEN!!

Thank the Lord & Blast the Politicians

Tomorrow we join together with our families and friends to give thanks to God for a great many things. As Americans, we have been blessed with relative freedom and prosperity, safety and security for nearly two and a half centuries. And particularly since the heinous attacks on our homeland on September 11, 2001, we have enjoyed 8 years of safety. But earlier this month, that safety came to an abrupt end! At Ft. Hood, TX, arguably one of the most secure military installations in the country, wherein our brave men and women are prepped for the War on Terror abroad, we were again awakened to the threat of domestic terror at the hands of radical Islamists.

And MAKE NO MISTAKE, with candid emails to terrorists, devotion to radical Islam, and statements and actions in support of jihadists across the globe, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was nothing less than a terrorist. Having infiltrated higher ranks of the U.S. military, Hasan had unbridled access to sensitive information and free-reign to wreak the havoc that consumed 13 lives of our bravest!!!After 8 years of security the Obama political correctness machine has become complicit in the murder of these servicemen!

And not to be outdone, the Obama Administration spat in the face of Americans when Attorney General Eric Holder declared that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay will be tried on American soil in New York, City - just blocks from Ground Zero - with full American rights!!!
STOP THE POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS! BLAST-FAX THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!

After 9/11, these terrorist thugs and their combatant cohorts were judiciously hunted down and captured by our brave men and women in uniform - at great risk, and loss of U.S. blood and treasure - and they were promptly shipped to Guantanamo Bay to be held with other terrorist conspirators ... far away from American shores where they could do no more harm.And there they have awaited military tribunals to be prosecuted as the foreign combatants and as the war criminals they are!

While imprisoned at "Gitmo", these terrorists have revealed crucial intelligence details that have aided the CIA and FBI in preventing more 9/11-style attacks. Now, after the most heinous terror attack in modern history, Barack Obama and his Islamist-coddling, socialist administration are hell-bent on closing Gitmo and bringing these terrorist thugs onto American soil to be given a full and fair trial complete with defense access to our security secrets -- and constitutional rights ... reserved only for U.S. citizens!!!We cannot, nay, we WILL NOT let this go without a fight!
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! BLAST THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!

Giving Thanks

Psalms 100:4 Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.

TLBC Website click here

Thanksgiving Card

click here

Thank you (?) Senate...

Well, they had a chance to do what the voters in our country wanted and they did not do it. They had a chance to do something that just MIGHT have stayed the hand of God's wrath on this nation and they did not do it. How can we expect the blessings of God on our land when we continue to commit the abominations that we do and try to legitimize them by passing ungodly laws that condone the murder of our unborn children?

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- With the bare minimum needed, Senate Democrats voted on Saturday night to begin the official debate and amendment process for a health care reform bill that allows for massive abortion funding. The measure sponsored by Senate leader Harry Reid could fund hundreds of thousands of abortions.

The vote split entirely on party lines with 60 Democrats voting to break the Republican filibuster supported by 39 party members in the Senate.
The abortion funding comes in both the public option as well as through the affordability credits.

Americans United for Life Action president Charmaine Yoest talked with LifeNews.com about the vote.

“Senator Reid’s bill provides for an unprecedented expansion of federally-funded abortion," she said. "The majority of Americans who oppose federal funding of abortion will not stand for policies that force them into paying for abortions under the guise of health care reform.”
She said the bill contains five major threats to pro-life principles.
The bill allows the HHS Secretary to require coverage of any and all abortions through the public option, creates new federally-funded subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion, and requires every insurance market to include a private plan that covers abortion, Yoest explained.

The Senate health care bill also fails to sufficiently protect health care entities from discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions and fails to prohibit federal funding of assisted suicide.
Yoest confirmed that the Senate bill does not contain the Stupak amendment that the House added on a lopsided bipartisan vote.

“The Reid language in the new Senate health care bill is not the Stupak-Pitts language barring federal funds from going to abortion in health care. It is the opposite of the pro-life Stupak-Pitts language," she told LifeNews.com.

The representative of the Catholic bishops has also blasted the pro-abortion provisions in the bill, saying the Senate bill "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."
Other leading pro-life groups like Americans United for Life, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council and Susan B. Anthony List have come to the same conclusion about the abortion funding in the Senate bill.

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."

Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, has said he would propose an amendment similar to the Stupak amendment, to remove the abortion funding from the legislation.
The bill has also come under fire for raising taxes on special needs children and their families at a time when 90 percent of babies with disabilities are killed in abortion.

Was Bush THIS dumb???

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W.. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice, would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtownManhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 6 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

a 9 million dollar question

Marion and Cookie are out of the hospital. Jim is still in the hospital with an infection at the surgical incision. Pray also for Jim as the cancer has spread to his lymph-nodes and they must start chemo as soon as he is strong enough for it. My sermon today at TLBC was on "We Shall Be Satisfied" click here

For information on the November 18th "Anti-Cap and Trade Rally" in Portland, Oregon click here.

Did long-time CNN anchor Lou Dobbs actually leave CNN and 9 million dollars over the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's refusal to release his actual birth certificate? The New York Post says so: "Lou Dobbs walked away from more than $9 million when he quit CNN, ending a long-running clash that boiled over during a debate about President Obama's birth certificate...."

But those who have actually watched and listened to Dobbs know the real irony here. The fact of the matter is that Dobbs is NOT, what the media derisively calls, a "birther." In fact, Dobbs has consistently insisted that he believes Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

What plagued Dobbs is his insistence on asking a legitimate and crucial question that Obama has refused to answer... and a question the rest of the media simply refuse to ask. And that question is, why doesn't Barack Obama simply produce his birth certificate, and put the controversy over his eligibility to be President... to rest.

Dobbs question begs two more crucial questions: Why has Team Obama spent as much as 1.4 million dollars in legal fees fighting actions that would compel him to produce his actual birth certificate... a document that would cost him perhaps 10 dollars to release? Why do Obama's handlers continue to insist that Obama has produced his actual birth certificate when, in fact, he has done no such thing?

Here are Dobbs' own words, spoken on his radio show on Friday: "What you can't do in America today... you can't ask a question without there being severe repercussions."

Dobbs goes on: "But what I don't see, with all the controversy, is why he [Obama] just doesn't produce his birth certificate. And what is extraordinary is the firestorm that the left-wing ginned up over that [question]...." Think of it this way. Lou Dobbs is now poorer by 9 million dollars because he dared to ask a question. We're with Dobbs. We applaud the fact that he had the courage to ask that question and moreover, patriotic Americans should demand that the rest of the media start asking that same question. If you love freedom, you have a duty to castigate each and every one of them until they start asking that question.

Flood the fax machines of the editors of the top ten newspapers in the United States, and the producers at ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX News, MSNBC and CNN. Tell them that the American people stand with Lou Dobbs. Tell them they should all be asking the simple question that Dobbs had the courage and journalistic integrity to ask. Call them on the carpet for distorting and not reporting. Demand that they call upon Barack Obama to explain why his people have spent 1.4 million dollars fighting efforts to compel him to produce his birth certificate and why his people continually claim that he has produced his birth certificate when, in fact, he has done no such thing.

The Western Center for Journalism is an organizanization that will fax all the mainstream media organizations for you and donation to this cause are Tax Deductible. To get them to send your faxes use this hyperlink.

But Wait A Minute? Didn't Obama Publish His Birth Certificate? Isn't It Posted On The Internet? Actually... no... he DID NOT. The document that is published on the Internet... the document Obama actually released... is a "Certification of Live Birth." It's a "short-form" document that is generated on-the-spot and is based on information that is contained in a computer database at the time it was printed.

The Document Obama Refuses To Produce.

Admittedly, for many people, the fact that Obama produced the computer generated copy of a "Certificate of Live Birth" and the fact that his people insisted on calling it an actual birth certificate did not raise alarm bells for many. But when asked to produce his actual birth certificate... Barack Obama's people started spending enormous sums of money to stop efforts to compel him to produce it.

Rational people, like Dobbs, could only ask why. Is the name of a hospital... or an attending physician... or an imprinted seal from around the actual time of birth, a state secret? Obviously not. In fact, it shouldn't really be a big deal... and that's why it doesn't really matter where one stands on the issue of Obama's citizenship and legitimacy... you don't have to be what some in the media have derisively call a "birther" to ask... what is Barack Obama hiding and why? Either he's hiding something... or he's so incredibly arrogant, he simply doesn't believe he should be required to produce anything he is asked to produce... even something as seemingly insignificant as his actual birth certificate. Is he that arrogant... or is he hiding something? That's the question Dobbs was essentially asking... that's the question that deserves an answer... and that's the question that Barack Obama DOES NOT want anyone to ask.

Again... it's the question the media doesn't seem to want to ask either... it's a simple question... and for that reason alone... it's the one question we should ask. But no one in the media will ask it (now that Dobbs has moved on from CNN) unless patriotic Americans start demanding that the question be asked. And we can start asking that question right now.

Use the link below and help the Western Center for Journalism flood the fax machines of the editors of the top ten newspapers in the United States, and the producers at ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX News, MSNBC and CNN. Tell them that the American people stand with Lou Dobbs. Tell them they should all be asking the simple question that Dobbs had the courage and journalistic integrity to ask. Call them on the carpet for distorting and not reporting. Demand that they call upon Barack Obama to explain why his people have spent 1.4 million dollars fighting efforts to compel him to produce his birth certificate and why his people continually claim that he has produced his birth certificate when, in fact, he has done no such thing. Contributions to The Western Center for Journalism Are Tax Deductible. Use this hyperlink.

Another Interesting Point Of Order. The "Certification of Live Birth" (the document Obama actually provided) was not always adequate for the purpose of proving that an individual was physically born in Hawaii. At least that's what the State of Hawaii used to say. Specifically the Hawaii Department of Home Lands (DHHL) used to state the following on its website: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Hawaii's policy in this regard only changed months ago... only after the controversy of Obama's eligibility came to light... and more than likely as a result of the controversy. Obama's eligibility depends upon his actual place of birth. The law at the time of his birth was very clear. As his father was not an American citizen and his mother was too young to bestow her citizenship upon him, there is no way he could even claim to be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States (as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) were he not born on American soil. So... why spend up to 1.4 million dollars to avoid producing a document that the State of Hawaii required (until recently) to prove that one was born in Hawaii... a document that could satisfy - and POTENTIALLY SHUT-UP - millions of naysayers... a document that would cost Obama about 10 dollars to produce?

Lou Dobbs is 9 million dollars poorer for asking that question. The very least that freedom-loving Americans can do is demand the media start asking the same question. Because whether you believe that Barack Obama is eligible, under the Constitution, to be President of the United States or not, it's a question that demands an answer... at least Dobbs thought so.

Help the Western Center for Journalism flood the fax machines of the editors of the top ten newspapers in the United States, and the producers at ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX News, MSNBC and CNN. Tell them that the American people stand with Lou Dobbs. Tell them they should all be asking the simple question that Dobbs had the courage and journalistic integrity to ask. Call them on the carpet for distorting and not reporting. Demand that they call upon Barack Obama to explain why his people have spent 1.4 million dollars fighting efforts to compel him to produce his birth certificate and why his people continually claim that he has produced his birth certificate when, in fact, he has done no such thing.

more info on aarp

Following the money trail
According to the AARP website, the group promises seniors it will be a "voice in Washington and in your state, representing you on issues like Medicare, Social Security and consumer safety."
But the majority of the money AARP collects doesn't come from its annual $16 membership dues.
AARP 2008 revenues (in thousands)
AARP's 2008 consolidated financial statements reveal the organization earns far more income from selling supplementary insurance to members than it takes in from yearly member fees.
The group received nearly $653 million in royalties from private insurance companies that sold products referred by AARP in 2008. It also received an additional $120 million for the ads placed in its publications.

By contrast, AARP collected $249 million in membership dues last year.
While the organization claims to represent almost 40 million Americans over age 50 – nearly as many members as the U.S. Roman Catholic Church – the group has been accused of inflating that number by automatically giving spouses and "domestic partners" free memberships. In reality, $249 million in annual dues would indicate members who actually sought and paid for memberships in 2008 may have numbered closer to 15.6 million.

AARP's federal funding
AARP is a private, nonprofit group, but the AARP 2008 annual report shows that of the $1.1 billion in revenue AARP received last year $90 million came from a variety of grants, including a substantial amount of federal aid. Its two largest grant programs offer tax counseling for the elderly and job training for low-income seniors.
According to a National Legal and Policy Center report titled, "How the Federal Government Subsidizes AARP," written by NLPC Director of Policy John Carlisle, AARP administers the federal funds through its the AARP Foundation, a 501(c)3 charity, because AARP is designated as a 501(c)4 that's ineligible for federal funds.

"The AARP Foundation is a legally distinct organization that theoretically operates independently of AARP," Carlisle explained. "It has its own board of directors and staff and can engage in fundraising activities to advance its particular public policy agenda. However, the foundation works so closely with AARP that the two entities are barely indistinguishable."
According to the report, the AARP Foundation is located in the same building as AARP, where employees work "practically side-by-side with lobbying staff" – and the AARP Foundation's second largest source of income is AARP.

In a March 2001 letter to the Department of Health and Human Services on federal aid, the AARP Foundation reported receiving money from the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, according to NLPC.

A 2008 donor list includes mention of "institutional support" from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor.
"[I]t's outrageous that taxpayers are being used to advance [AARP's] liberal agenda to expand government and thwart Social Security reform," Carlisle contends. "Ending federal subsidies to AARP would put an end to the unjust practice of publicly funding a highly partisan and controversial interest group."

Left-leaning activism and campaign contributions
Former President George W. Bush attempted to reform Social Security through the use of private retirement accounts in 2005. His plan sought to permit workers to redirect 4 percent of their Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts that would invest in mutual funds and other securities.

But AARP reacted to Bush's proposal by slamming its members with mass mailings and spending $5 million on full-page advertisements in 50 newspapers and an additional $5 million on print ads opposing Bush's plan.
With its nearly 3,000 chapters, AARP attended congressional town-hall meetings to counter Bush's proposal. The group also targeted seniors in its magazine and official bulletin, delivering it to 22 million U.S. households.
Only three months after beginning the lobbying campaign, AARP reported that 535 members of Congress were blasted with at least 460,000 calls in opposition to Bush's plan.
"AARP won the battle," Carlisle wrote. "Due largely to its multi-million dollar effort as well as considerable legislative lobbying, AARP succeeded in undermining support for private accounts in just a few months."

But AARP's Left-leaning activism didn't end there.
According to NLPC, AARP combated tax cuts during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It also fought the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 and helped the Clinton administration defeat a balanced budget amendment in 1995.
A 2006 AARP Impact Award goes to Harry Belafonte
In 2006, AARP honored singer and activist Harry Belafonte with its Impact Award for doing "something extraordinary to make the world a better place." Shortly afterward, Belafonte, a Hugo Chavez supporter, called President George W. Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."
While AARP bills itself as a nonpartisan group that does not support, oppose or contribute to any candidates or political parties, AARP's executives and employees overwhelmingly support Democrats.

President Obama with AARP CEO A. Barry Rand (left) and AARP President Jennie Chin Hansen (left) during AARP's July 28 tele-town hall on health care (White House photo by Pete Souza)
AARP CEO Barry Rand, is a strong supporter of President Obama, and federal records show he contributed $8,900 to Obama's campaign committees in 2008. According to Federal Election Commission databases, Rand has given $15,900 to Democratic campaign committees since 1995.
Likewise, AARP executive John Killpack gave $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee and $4,350 to Obama's campaign. AARP strategy consultant Joseph Liu gave $2,300 to Obama's campaign and an additional $2,300 to Obama's victory fund.
A search of campaign contributions by AARP executives and employees reveals they overwhelmingly gave to Obama's campaign and Democrats during the 2008 election cycle – by a ratio of 14 workers to one.
According to those records, the following are recipients of reported contributions exceeding $200 from 75 AARP executives and employees during the 2008 election cycle:
Democratic Party and/or Democrats for Congress: $15,600
John Edwards: $250
Hillary Clinton: $7,350
Barack Obama: $36,556
Fred Thompson: $1,000
Republican Party: $871
Rudy Giuliani: $1,150
John McCain: $1,550

In its March/April 2003 magazine, AARP honored billionaire George Soros as one of its 50 "top innovators" in a "Fearless 50" article. Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America reported that while the list featured a few conservatives, it was "top heavy with liberal luminaries."
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, blasted AARP in an interview with the Hill just days ago. "AARP is one of the most liberal organizations in Washington, D.C.," Boehner said. "Obviously, most seniors aren't aware of that."

Gun-control advocacy
Some opponents claim AARP supports gun control. AARP declared in its 2007 policy book, "Congress should eliminate gaps in and strengthen enforcement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other federal gun laws."
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required federal background checks on purchasers of handguns.
AARP 2007 policy book promotes strengthened enforcement of federal gun laws
In a 2001 letter to a constituent from AARP legislation and public policy Director John Rother, AARP outlined its pro-gun control position (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3).
Also, in a Dec. 10, 2004, press release, AARP stated:
"AARP believes in the Constitutional right to bear arms. But to make the nation safer, we must do what we can to keep guns out of hands of children and criminals. AARP supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which went into law in 1994 with bi-partisan support, but was allowed to expire this year."

Immigration and migrant workers
AARP also supports entitlements for "migrant workers." In the same Dec. 10, 2004, press release, AARP stated:
"Migrant workers are among the most poorly paid and ill-housed workers in the nation. They often do not qualify for Social Security or income assistance programs. AARP supports efforts to meet the needs, particularly of older and disabled workers, including making them aware of low income assistance programs for which they may be eligible."
In 2004, the Arizona arm of the influential seniors group announced its opposition to Proposition 200, a measure to deny state welfare benefits to illegal aliens. The measure also required state agencies to report illegals to the federal government and voters to show U.S. identification.
In 2008, AARP International hosted a series in which three "experts" in the fields of immigration and aging addressed the topic "Immigration: Challenges, Trends and the Impact on the U.S. Labor Force."
The first speaker, Robert Suro of the School of Journalism at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, was introduced as an expert in the field of immigration. He discussed U.S. demographic trends.
"Immigration is increasingly becoming a function of who we import to fill holes in our labor market," he explained.
The next speaker, Alejandro Garcia, regional representative of the AARP National Policy Council, said an estimated one in six illegal immigrants are employed in long-term care settings.
"Garcia expressed concern about the treatment and welfare of undocumented workers, which are often invisible and unacknowledged," the AARP International executive summary stated. "In his view, we must challenge the notion that they are parasites living off of the wealth of America without contributing; these individuals provide the cheap labor and products that American society demands, including much-needed relief to the shortage of long-term care workers. Many of them pay taxes for services they are not eligible to receive. In spite of their contributions, we have been reluctant to integrate them into society. According to Garcia, this fact has been reflected in the rise in ethnicity-motivated violence against Hispanics and the proliferation of nativist-extremist groups in recent years."
Finally, the last speaker, John Rother, AARP group executive officer of policy and strategy, advocated providing education and "taking advantage of the younger, immigrant workforce."
The AARP International executive summary stated, "AARP has for the most part been a proponent of a universal approach to social issues and public policy, which holds that everybody, regardless of origin, should have the same access to education, opportunities, and laws protecting them from discrimination."
In 2004, AARP partnered with the National Council of La Raza – a group that has promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs and no immigration law enforcement by state and local police – to "educate elderly Hispanics and their families" on the Medicare prescription drug program.

Pro-homosexual agenda
Focus on the Family's Steve Kipp published a 2-page analysis on AARP and what he considers a pro-homosexual agenda.
He notes that by 2004, AARP was openly referring to multiple homosexual activist organizations, referencing a "web exclusive" AARP article written by Randy Hecht, titled "No straight answers."
Kipp wrote that Hecht's article promoted gay sensitivity training sessions that essentially served as "re-education" sessions. A sidebar titled "Sites to see: Organizations and resources for older gays, lesbians" offered the five referred links on AARP's website:
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Human Rights Campaign, or HRC. AARP also links to some of HRC's publications and directly links both to the "marriage section" of Human Rights Campaign as well as its elections and members of Congress section.
PFLAG, or Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
SAGE, or Senior Action in a Gay Environment
LGAIN, or Lesbian and Gay Aging Issues Network
AARP hosted a New York gay pride event in 2001 and invited SAGE, or Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders, to host an exhibit, Kipp wrote.
AARP website banner declares, "Pride comes in all ages."

He also reported the following:
AARP's Andrus Foundation provided a matching-funds grant to SAGE in 2002
AARP featured gay pride month on its 2001 and 2002 online calendars.
The group invited homosexual "anti-homophobia" groups to its national annual meeting in Chicago in 2003
AARP Prime Time Radio featured a segment on gay history and segments on "two daddies," and AARP began profiling gay couples in its My Generation magazine
In 2003, AARP openly united with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, or LCCR, established a major "Voices of Civil Rights" multi-media campaign that included a bus tour and website collaboration. The website classifies homosexuality as a "civil rights issue." LCCR was the most prominent signer of a March 1, 2004, open letter to Congress opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Kipp wrote that AARP's polling data reveal its differences with its constituency. According to the report, AARP members who are 70 and older are highly conservative on social issues, especially on issues like same-sex marriage.
In 2008, AARP sponsored the SAGE's National Conference on LGBT Aging, declaring that "AARP is paying attention to LGBT needs to minimize discrimination and to ensure equality as people age in America."

Shredding the AARP membership card
According to news reports, at least 60,000 AARP members canceled their memberships from July to August of this year amid anger over the group's position on health care. AARP said the members represented a small percentage of its total membership and that during the same time period, 400,000 people joined AARP and 1.5 million renewed their memberships.
Some members destroyed their AARP cards and switched to the American Seniors Association, the New York Times reported. The alternative organization is offering former AARP members a year of free membership if they send in their torn AARP cards. YES I DID!!!!!
AARP has recently announced its endorsement of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, and the accompanying Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act, HR 3961.
Several WND readers have indicated that they will cancel their memberships due to AARP's support of the health-care bill.

The following are some comments received in recent days:
The AARP hasn't been my "voice" in a long time.
If anyone has AARP, it's time to find something else.
I called AARP this morning to cancel my membership. It took several tries before I got anything but a busy signal, and then I was on hold for several minutes. As soon as I told the young man I wanted to cancel, he asked if it was because of the health-care issue. I told him it was. I wonder how many other people they lost today.

AARP has sold out its members by endorsing a health-care plan that will only result in higher taxes, worse coverage and more government control over our lives. It's time to draw the line and cut the cord. Hit them in the pocketbook for their disservice to members. They were supposed to have our best interests at heart – not their own. Their conflict of interest deserves to be repaid.
As WND reported, the American Family Association, or AFA, warned in August that AARP launched a "huge and costly" television ad campaign in support of the health-care plan proposed by President Obama.
Now AFA has renewed its call for AARP constituents to cancel their memberships due to the group's endorsement of the Democrats' health "reform," claiming the organization no longer represents the best interests of the elderly. American Family Association, or AFA,
"The AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors," AFA said in a statement, "but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets."

Frank P
Better to Die On Your Feet
Than Live On Your Knees!!!

Don't give up the fight !

Subject: House Passes Bill: Here is what will happen next.

Will the health-care bill become law?
Here is how the process works...


Dear Pro-life Friend.

We can be very glad that the Stupak Amendment passed, which would effectively ban the use of our money at any level in this health care bill from being used to pay for the murder of children, unless those children had the grave misfortune of being conceived by rape or incest. Then, they can be murdered with our money.

That being stated, this battle is far from over. I make no bones about it: I want to kill this bill. I hate Socialism.

However, I also understand that ethically there is a huge difference between someone robbing me in order to pay for his daughter to have her appendix removed and someone robbing me to pay for the murder of his daughter. One theft involves pursuing life, the other involves pursuing murder.

Now, for the any who are unfamiliar with the process of how bills become laws, let me explain to you some of what lies ahead.

The next focal point in this battle will be the United States Senate.

Republicans have already indicated they intend to filibuster this bill. But, in order to sustain a filibuster, they need 41 votes, and they only have 40 members in the Senate. So, will a Democrat defect from evil, and vote for freedom and life? Will an independent like Lieberman filibuster with the Republicans? We will have to see.

Anyway, before any bill becomes law a bill must pass in the Senate.

Then, because the Senate bill and the House bill have different language, they have to take the bill to what is called a "conference committee."

The C-SPAN Congressional glossary defines conference committee thus: "A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE is a temporary panel of House and Senate negotiators. A conference committee is created to resolve differences between versions of similar House and Senate bills."

The conference committee -- made up of Senators and members of the House of Representatives -- will take the words of both bills and hammer them out so that the words in the bill are exactly identical.

The conference committee is dangerous water for the Stupak amendment. It could be thrown out in committee. There are many amendments that pass in the House or the Senate which get thrown overboard in conference committee.

After the bill is hammered out in committee, it must go back to both chambers -- the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate -- to be voted on again in its entirety. There have been bills that passed both houses, but when the bill was returned from conference committee it was defeated in one of the chambers because the changes made in committee were unacceptable to the majority of that chamber.

So, if the Stupak amendment gets thrown out in committee, the pro-life House Members who voted for it could kill the bill the next time it comes up for a vote.

If the bill passes in both houses (Senate and House) after the conference committee changes, it goes to the President of the United States, who has 10 days to sign it into becoming law. Obviously, President Obama will sign whatever health care bill reaches him.

So, to recap: there are at least three votes left on this bill before any law could reach President Obama's desk for his signature. first, a vote in the Senate. If 41 senators agree to filibuster, it could be defeated there. The Democrats could avoid the process of filibuster by putting the health care bill in the form of a "reconciliation" bill. You may have heard this bantered about as the "Nuclear Option." The rules of filibuster do not apply to a "reconciliation" bill, so the Dems would only need a simple majority of 51 votes.

If the bill passes the Senate, it must go to a conference committee. Once hammered out there, it goes back to both houses for another vote.

So...we must now turn our full attention to the Senate.

I will be writing soon, to give you some ideas as to what you can do in your area, or here in DC.

If you want to send a personal letter by fax (from you) to every US Senator, you can do so for only 17 1/2 cents each - $17.50 - for all 100 Senators.

Go to http://www.overturnroe.com/obamacare/allsenate.htm to write to all Senators.

And by the way - the video of the sit-in our friends did at Nancy Pelosi's office already has about 34,000 views. If you have not seen it, I urge you to go to www.Youtube.com/randallterry and watch the two videos on the sit-in. I promise you will be inspired.

We have a lot of planning and fighting to do. Please keep us in your prayers.

Randall Terry

aarp

When the American Association of Retired Persons – one of the wealthiest advocacy groups in the U.S. – began backing the $1.2 trillion House health bill despite concerns about Medicare cuts, death panels and assisted suicide, many members shredded their membership cards, saying the organization no longer represents their interests – but AARP's history of left-leaning activism on a host of issues may surprise its constituents.
AARP's Nov. 5 health bill endorsement left many seniors wondering why the powerful group that claims to represent their interests would call for an estimated $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, a system many seniors have indicated that they would like to preserve.

"After carefully monitoring developments in Washington and studying the various legislative proposals, AARP's all-volunteer Board of Directors – made up of working and retired doctors, nurses, business people, and teachers – has decided to endorse the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962/H.R. 3961) because it delivers on key priorities we've been fighting for," an AARP announcement stated.

Why the AARP health 'reform' endorsement?

AARP collects royalties on "Medigap insurance," a privately purchased insurance coverage that helps pay some of the health-care costs that Medicare doesn't cover. However, seniors have the option of joining Medicare Advantage plans, allowing them to use Medicare funds to purchase private insurance plans that offer extra benefits and lower copayments than the Original Medicare Plan.

An estimated 10.2 million seniors have enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
When seniors enroll in Medicare Advantage plans, they often drop Medigap policies because Medigap plans won't pay deductibles, copayments or other cost-sharing under the Medicare health plan. The switch slashes Medigap revenues – and, simultaneously impacts AARP royalties from Medigap insurance.

However, Sec. 1161 of the House bill would slash payments to Medicare Advantage health plans used by 20 percent of seniors and cause them to lose some benefits, including vision and dental coverage. Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, one of the leading health-care policy organizations in the country, told WND's Radio America AARP saw that it would lose revenue if it didn't stop the Medicare Advantage programs.

"The House bill would dramatically cut money out of Medicare Advantage programs, forcing people to need the Medigap policies that are such a big cash cow for the AARP," she said.
"Seniors are going to have higher costs in Medicare. Because of the cuts in Medicare, they are going to have ever more need for these Medigap policies. So the AARP, therefore, will be able to make even more money off of us," Turner explained. "The legislation both kills competition that the AARP has with these Medicare Advantage programs, and it boosts the number of people who need the Medigap insurance because Medicare is going to become an even more deficient program than it is now if you take half a trillion dollars out of it."

Could happen...

You're sound asleep when you hear
a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,
you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your
house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down
beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch
toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike,
you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police,
you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years
before, and the few that are privately owned
are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you
that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder
and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells
you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years,"
he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead
story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric
vigilante while the two men you shot
are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can't find
an unkind word to say about them.
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up,
then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing
to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack
of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor
that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege
that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven't been reduced,
as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at
the injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you
as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict
you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted
and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's
own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important,
please forward to everyone you know.
Your new White House
resident is going to do this very same thing
in the US if he can get it done.
And there are stupid people in congress and
on the street that will go right along with him.

Rules

Preached on "Three Lumps of Clay" today. Outline on TLBC website front page. click here

Archived articles surface, refer to "Kenyan-born Obama"
A June 2004 article from the archives of the East African Standard referred to then Senator Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born,” while an article published in the Oct. 11, 2009 edition refers to Obama becoming President of the United States “via a sleepy village in Kenya called Nyang’oma K’Ogelo.”
Source: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2009/091021/FrntPgObama.html

BO may be the resident in the White House but he is NOT the President if he is not Constitutionally qualified for the office as a native born American.


The Man Rules
At last a guy has taken the time to write this all down

Finally , the guys' side of the story.( I must admit, it's pretty good.) We always hear " the rules " From the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side.
These are our rules!Please note.. these are all numbered "1 " ON PURPOSE!

1.. Men are NOT mind readers.
1. Learn to work the toilet seat.You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down.You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.
1. Sunday sports: It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides.Let it be.
1. Crying is blackmail.
1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work!Strong hints do not work!Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!
1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question..
1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do.Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inad missible in an argument. In fact, all comments become Null and void after 7 Days.
1. If you think you're fat, you probably are.Don't ask us.
1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one. 1. You can either ask us to do somethingOr tell us how you want it done. Not both.If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
1. Whenever possible, Please say whatever you have to say during commercials...
1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.
1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not A color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.
1. If it itches, it will be scratched.We do that.
1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," We will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.
1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, Expect an answer you don't want to hear.
1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine... Really .
1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball or golf.1.. You have enough clothes.
1. You have too many shoes.
1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!
1. Thank you for reading this.
Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight; But did you know men really don't mind that? It's like camping. Pass this to as many men as you can -to give them a laugh. Pass this to as many women as you can - to give them a bigger laugh..

R U Following the HC Debate?

Are you following the Health Care debate in DC? I guess they are going to try and force their plan through today. If you have mailed in letters or signed petitions on this subject be advised that they are being diverted to a holding room for 14 days and will not be seen by your representative until after the vote. I personally called my Congressman but he did not answer his phone and his voice mail box was full and would not take my message. Below is an email that I sent to him today.

Dear Congressman,
If PelosiCare passes, I hope you will also pass the Bill that forces ALL elected Federal officials and their staff to cancel what they have for Health Insurance and take PelosiCare instead.
James Madison, in Federalist, number 57, has some words highly relevant to the Pelosi health care reform bill:

"If it be asked, what is to restrain the house of representatives from making legal discriminations in favour of themselves, and a particular class of society? I answer, the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America; a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. If this spirit ever be so far debased, as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty."

Given the fact that the currently pending health care reform bill does not obligate the members of Congress to have their medical well-being covered by it, it is as if Madison himself is rising from the grave and is pointing his finger at us accusingly and asking us whether we will meekly and timidly allow the liberty which he, the Founding Fathers and all our other ancestors worked so hard to secure to be taken from us quietly and seamlessly in a simple vote on the floor of the House of Representatives?

Emergency Alert !!

This is one site I would recommend that you go to and research the history and voting record of your political representatives. http://votesmart.org/index.htm

You will also find information on contacting your rep in his district offices in your state. Starting NOW and all the way up to the vote we must call and /or fax our reps and let them know how we want them to vote on Health Care. Do you know WHY?

EMERGENCY ALERT!!

WE MUST CONTACT OUR REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH PHONE AND FAX REGARDING THEIR VOTE ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL BECAUSE...

DELIVERY OF PETITIONS AND MAIL ARE BEING DIVERTED TO ANTHRAX HOLDING WHICH WILL TAKE A MINIMUM OF 14 DAYS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT HIT OUR REPS UNTIL AFTER PELOSI FORCES THE VOTE. WATCH BELOW!

Earlier this week a Grassfire and Resistnet Team went to DC to deliver petitions and were shut out! To hear first hand, go to Resistnet Radio and listen to the last show or check out the 2 videos with their updates in DC. http://www.resistnet.com/group/resistnetradioshow

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPXTZ0ZVNUE&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKtYi3brEuI&feature=player_embedded

The Cross

My sermon today was "The Cross Still Stands Today" and the outline can be seen on our TLBC website front page click here. For the latest on the Obama Birth Certificate controversy, see below.

From The Desk Of Gary G. Kreep

Dear Friend of the Constitution,

This is an email that I hoped and prayed that I’d never have to write. You see, United States District Court Judge David O. Carter just ruled in favor of the Obama Justice Department -- and against the United States Justice Foundation -- in one of the most critical court cases to ever be filed in the history of our nation. With the stroke of his pen, Judge Carter granted the taxpayer-paid Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss our case which sought to discover the truth behind Barack Obama’s hidden birth certificate. What we thought would be perhaps America’s best chance at protecting the Constitution by exposing Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility to serve as President, has suddenly been rendered dead in the water.

HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW!

Does this mean that USJF is throwing in the towel and meekly accepting the occupation of the White House by a man who, according to the mounting evidence, appears to be a foreign-born non-citizen? Certainly not! In fact, not only will we appeal this case, up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, but our campaign to protect the United States Constitution is proceeding on multiple fronts, but only with your help.

With this recent court ruling against USJF, we realize that we must redouble our efforts in all our legal challenges to Barack Obama. For the sake of America’s future . . . we must win! To be frank, your continued financial support is absolutely vital at this time.

HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW!

The Obama juggernaut thinks it has us on the ropes. They think that we’re ready to call it quits, to give up and to let the Constitutional crisis of an apparent non-citizen at the helm of the United States government continue unchallenged. Well, let me say this loud and clear:

THEY ARE WRONG!

That’s right. With your faithful support, in addition to filing an appeal, USJF is continuing the legal and public relations battles that it’ll take to drive the “pretender to the throne” from the White House! Together, you and USJF can achieve victory! And here are some of the challenges to the apparently illegitimate Obama administration that the United States Justice Foundation has already undertaken or has in the works:

Petitioning state Attorneys General across the country to investigate Barack Obama for perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers, claiming that he is eligible to serve as President of the United States;

Calling upon the Federal Election Commission to investigate Mr. Obama for allegedly receiving millions of dollars in illegal foreign contributions during his 2008 campaign;

Challenging each and every action he takes -- issuing executive orders, naming court appointees, signing legislation -- until he proves once and for all whether he is a natural born citizen;

Funding lawsuits and assisting local attorneys and plaintiffs who are taking on Barack Obama all across the country on this issue, including three lawsuits being handled by Phil Berg, and lawsuits in Hawaii, Mississippi, and Ohio;

Petitioning federal judges in every state to convene citizen grand juries to investigate whether or not Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen and, thus, eligible to serve as President;

Filing a class action suit that will see ordinary citizens -- like you -- challenging Barack Obama’s tenure in Washington, and forcing him to prove his citizenship or vacate that office;

Encouraging American citizens to visit their United States Representative or Senator with a copy of their own birth certificate, and insist that their elected officials demand to see Mr. Obama’s birth certificate;

Sending a flood of post cards to talk radio host Sean Hannity, asking him to publicly call upon Barack Obama to stop the stonewalling, and release his original birth certificate immediately;

Petitioning U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and Republican Party leader Michael Steele to demand from the floor of the Senate, from the floor of the House of Representatives, and from the “bully pulpit” of the Republican Party that Barack Obama be removed from office if he continues to turn a deaf ear to the American people by refusing to produce his birth certificate;

And airing a half-hour long television exposé of Barack Obama’s outrageous cover-up! The work that USJF is doing to oppose Barack Obama, and his socialist agenda for America, is indispensible. The fact is, we are the one conservative legal group in the country that is taking on “Resident” Obama in order to save the Constitution! I thank God that you have chosen to partner with the United States Justice Foundation to enable us to fight this fight. Thank you so much! Right now, please, use the link below after you pray about what size gift you can send today to help USJF save the United States from this Constitutional crisis.

HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW!

I know that you have already done so much. But even though Judge Carter struck down our case -- after months of research, preparation, and litigation -- I see the glass as half full. Whether or not our appeal is successful, USJF’s other current and pending legal actions, along with our television program -- that has been mocked by activist lesbian MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow -- can and will serve America by shining the light of truth on Barack Obama. Please, send the best possible gift that you can afford, and please send it today. Whatever amount you can send -- whether $50 or $50,000 -- will enable the United States Justice Foundation, your conservative voice in the courts since 1979, to do what it does best . . . defend America in court and out from the continuous attacks of those who want to see our nation destroyed. Frankly, if we fail to stop Barack Obama and his socialist plans, America will likely never recover. Are you willing to take that risk? Are you willing to see your children and grandchildren grow up in a European-style socialist America? I need your help today in stopping Barack Obama from getting away with stealing the United States Presidency. I pray that I will hear from you today.

Sincerely,Gary Kreep, Executive DirectorUnited States Justice Foundation

P.S. Please don’t underestimate the “half full” glass. The “half empty” folks are wringing their hands, convinced that Barack Obama has won and there’s nothing that we can do. But the half full folks know that USJF’s legal challenges -- coupled with our appeal of this decision by Judge Carter and your prayers and financial support -- present a great opportunity for us, you, and the American people to be the victors! Please send your best gift today. God bless you for your commitment.
HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW!

To donate by check, please mail to:United States Justice FoundationNational Processing CenterPO Box 131657Dept Code 3165Houston, TX 77219-1637 The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a non-profit organization, whose tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(3) has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Your contributions are tax deductible. Corporate contributions may be accepted.