Senate Will Approve Sotomeyor~ Bible Prophecy Today follow up~Rush Limbaugh

Senate Will Approve Sotomeyor ~ Bible Prophecy Today Follow up by Rush Limbaugh

Follow Up to This By Rush Limbaugh:

As Hearings Kick Off, Democrats Focus on Sotomayor v. El Rushbo

July 13, 2009

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, to the audio sound bites involving the hearings with Sonia Sotomayor. This is very important, actually. It's a lifetime appointment that will affect this nation for decades. Sotomayor will be involved in rulings that impact the next generation. And I don't care about flash polls. I don't care what Chuck-U Schumer says. What I care about is that Obama has nominated a radical who reflects his beliefs. Remember, the importance of these hearings. Like Lindsey Graham is out there saying, "Well, she's probably going to make it barring the meltdown." Well, then why do the hearings, Lindsey? Look, there's politics here. This woman... If done right -- and the Republicans got off to a good start today -- these hearings could help inform the country about who Barack Obama is because this woman, Sonia Sotomayor, is a reflection. She is a radical. She reflects the beliefs of Barack Obama, including his own racial attitudes. Conservatives and Republicans must not only expose her but they have to vote against her. This empathy business? Empathy is another word for activism. Sessions was great on that today. The truth is that a judge who uses empathy to rule is not empathetic. This is the interesting thing. Empathy means that you're able to feel the circumstances of other persons. It's not sympathy. You don't have to feel sorry for them. You empathize, you relate to them, you understand the hard times they've had in their lives. A judge who uses empathy to rule is not empathetic. Sotomayor is abusing her position to punish someone because of their race or their income, which has nothing to do with justice. This is perverse. "Empathy" means you understand who's been disadvantaged for whatever reasons and then you go after them, and you give them preference and weight. She's an affirmative action judge. Call it whatever you want. Now, the Democrats want to make this all about Sotomayor versus me. We have a spot, a new ad run by a liberal Latina organization called "Presente Action." They have a website called DenunciaRush.com. DenunciaRush.com and they're running these radio ads in Florida against John Mica and Adam Putnam. ANNOUNCER (translated from Spanish): Sonia Sotomayor is set to be the first Latina, and Puerto Rican, to serve on the US Supreme Court. It is a proud moment for our community. Yet Republican leaders insist on attacking her: RUSH ARCHIVE: She doesn't have any intellectual depth. She's an angry woman. She's a bigot. She's a racist. ANNOUNCER (translated from Spanish): That's Republican leader Rush Limbaugh calling Judge Sotomayor a racist and a bigot. It's insulting to all Latinos and Americans. We asked Republican Congressman John Mica if he would denounce Limbaugh's words. His response? Silence. Let's put a stop to the hate. Call Congressman Mica (R-FL) today. 407-657-8080. Tell him to condemn this language. RUSH: Must have hit home on that one if they're running ads out there trying to denounce -- they've got a whole website called DenunciaRush.com because I called her a "racista," a "racista and a bigot," and they're taking that... By the way, I sounded pretty good in that sound bite, don't you think? I'm the only one in English in the whole bite, but you get the drift here. The last line of this: "We asked Republican Congressman John Mica if he would denounce Limbaugh's words. His response? Silencio." Silence. So from that we were able to glean how Pat "Depends -- Leaky Depends" Leahy would open the hearings today. LEAHY: Unfortunately some have sought to twist her words and her record and to engage in partisan political attacks. Ideological pressure groups began attacking her even before the president made his selection. They then stepped up their attacks by threatening Republican senators who do not oppose her. That's not the American way, and that should not be the Senate way. RUSH: Jeez. LEAHY: I think we have a high responsibility to base any criticism we have on a fair and honest statement of the facts, and that nomination not be subjected to distortions of their records.

RUSH: This is just absurd. I mean, this is a guy that seeks to destroy every Republican nominee that comes up there. "It's not the American way. It's not the Senate way." Partisan political attacks? Here's the woman comes out and says a wise Latina would rule better than an average white guy. Her ruling was overturned, the Ricci firemen ruling in New Haven, Connecticut. During these hearings all the senators get their open statement. Sotomayor still hasn't said a word. She's just sitting there beaming, and not beaming when the Republicans are speaking (except for Lindsey Grahamnesty) and these blowhards are going through their opening statements and telling everybody how important they are. They're creating sound bites for their reelection efforts. Here's Russ Feingold. Now, Cookie, who put the audio sound bites together, is convinced Feingold was talking about me even though they don't even mention my name. FEINGOLD: I'm glad, however, that Judge So-to-may-or will finally have an opportunity to answer some of the unsubstantiated charges that have been made against her. One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record, because there's absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it. That long record which is obviously the most relevant evidence we have to evaluate her, demonstrates a cautious and careful approach to judging. Instead, a few lines from a 2001 speech taken out of context, have prompted some to charge she's a racist. RUSH: Uh-huh. And she is. She's racist and she's bigoted. Look, if words still mean things, then she is. "A wise Latina would be far better" to make judgments because of her "rich background" as a wise Latina than your average white guy, an average white male. Now, we may not want to face the hard reality of the definitions of words but there's no other way to characterize what she's talking about. Also, he says here that there's nothing in her judicial record to support this. Well, what about being overturned all these times by the Supreme Court? What about the Ricci case that was just overturned? She didn't even delve into the constitutional issues of that case. She simply decided against the white firefighters. There's no question what the woman is. She reflects the racial anger, attitude that Obama has. They both have used that anger to advance themselves throughout their careers. Next up, it was Dianne Feinstein from San Francisco, and they had a little problem here in the middle of Feinstein. FEINSTEIN: Everything in your record to indicate you -- MAN: (shouting) LEAHY: (banging gavel) MAN: (shouting) LEAHY: The Senate...! The Senate will...! The -- the police will remove that man! Let me make very clear: There will be no outbursts allowed in this committee either for or against the nominee, either for or against any position that Senator Sessions or I or any other Senator will have. This is a hearing of the United States Senate. We will have order and we will have decorum. RUSH: Now, this bite -- because the screaming starts and the gavel pounds and Leahy starts yelling -- you can't hear everything that the abortion protester said, but what he said was, "Stop the genocide of unborn Latinos." He was a ponytail guy. He looked Hispanic, but I don't know. But he was screaming, "What about abortions? Stop the genocide of unborn Latinos," and that's when they jumped into gear and they got the guy out of there. A little fireworks early on. Here's Jeff Sessions laying out what the hearing is all about. SESSIONS: Our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is a traditional American system so admired around the world where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views. This is the compassionate system because it's the fair system. In the American legal system courts do not make law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make law will strike at the heart of our democracy. Down the other path lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning, and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political or social agenda. I reject that view and Americans reject that view. RUSH: That's Jeff Sessions, the Republican leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was good, and all that followed. They were all that followed. They're pretty unified with all this. Before we go to the break, he was so good. The State-Run Media had to rebut Sessions, and what we have here, this is Matthews. Chrissy! Chris Matthews talking with Richard Wolffe of Newsweek. "This fight between Republicans, Democrats today across the board, you're saying," O wise one?

WOLFFE: It's not just about Sotomayor. This is a proxy battle about President Obama. Does he represent core American values? Can you trust his woooord? Is he in league with some foreign power? This is codeword for stuff that we all know circulates on the extreme of the conservative movement. This is -- MATTHEWS: That somehow a world government is going to come into Nebraska -- WOLFFE: (clucking) MATTHEWS: -- or in Idaho and take away your guns and then take you away. WOLFEE: Take away -- or take away your private property for a shopping mall. RUSH: I think that happened not in Nebraska. It happened in New London, Connecticut, did it not? Liberal enclave, did it not? Did not the Supreme Court take away someone's home to build a shopping mall that has not been built? All right. Why would people be worried it could happen to them if it's already happened in New London, Connecticut? Why would people be worried about that? Is that paranoia? Is that extremism? All right, quick time-out. We're coming back. We've got more. Stay with us. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: we have crashed, ladies and gentlemen, we have crashed DenunciaRush.com. They are at the moment finito. DenunciaRush has been crashed. So Russ Feingold, a couple of words that Sonia Sotomayor said taken out of context. You mean like Macaca? George Allen saying Macaca? We heard about that for weeks and months as the Washington Post and the Democrats sought to destroy Allen. He'd been a congressman, a governor, and a senator. Sotomayor's comments are much worse than Macaca, and they're frequent, and they are long held. You see how this race thing works, folks. If you're a liberal nothing you say can be held against you. And then Richard Wolffe, the British guy in the last sound bite, (muttering) "Take private property in Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, and open a shopping mall." Well, this is a guy that has written a kiss-up book on Obama, is a failure. Renegade is the book, number 217 on Amazon. Nobody is buying Richard Wolffe's book and nobody is reading it. What do you think the G8 cap and trade and all the rest is about, Richard, you dunce? It's about the transference of wealth. It's about the redistribution of wealth. It is about the expansion of government and the loss of individual liberty. What do you think Kyoto and its success are all about? These libs make no sense. They talk about being global citizens and sophisticated and urbane. When you call 'em on it then they call you a nut. Richard Wolffe, yeah, it's Richard Wolffe who wrote the Obama book, Renegade, number 217 on Amazon. I don't know what it is in Coeur d'Alene, Iowa. 217. I don't know what it is in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. It was just a slip of the tongue. Coming up, Colin Powell, this was last Sunday when I was already on the golf trip. But we told you we had the preview of what he was going to say because CNN was using it to promote their Sunday show, State of the Union, and he chimed in on me and called me a nonelected official, a problem for the Republican Party and so forth.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• The Hill: Sessions Says Sotomayor 'Prejudiced' • Washington Times: Graham: Sotomayor Confirmation Likely Unless 'Meltdown' • Reuters: Republicans Fight Obama Supreme Court Choice • American Thinker: What Ricci Says About Sotomayor - and Obama

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. ------------ The Answer for a Christian is simple: Pray for Sotomayor. Whether appointed or not is irrelevant to God, but her salvation is. We are not called to fix the World or Save the Supreme Court, We are told to change the heart of man and the World would conform. The only way.....The ABSOLUTE only way to change the heart of Men in politics, supreme court, or next door is Jesus. Michael James Stone

Faith is Personal not Political: More Americans Question Religion’s Role in Politics

More Americans Question Religion’s Role in Politics

Conservatives’ views now more in line with the views of moderates and liberals on this issue

Washington, DC - Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new national survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.

The latest survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted from July 31-Aug. 10 among 2,905 adults, reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.

The new survey finds that conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared.

There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are - from 40% to 46%.

While the Republican Party is most often seen as the party friendly toward religion, the Democratic Party has made gains in this area. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago. Nevertheless, considerably more people (52%) continue to view the GOP as friendly toward religion.

Similarly, the survey finds increasing numbers of Americans believing that religiously defined ideological groups have too much control over the parties themselves. Nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007. At the same time, more people say that liberals who are not religious have too much sway over the Democrats than did so last year (43% today vs. 37% then).

Changes in views about the role of churches in politics notwithstanding, many of the contours of American public opinion relating to broad questions of religion and politics remain largely unchanged. Two-thirds of the public (66%) say that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse one candidate over another, which is unchanged since 2004 (65%). And while most say it is important for presidents to have strong religious beliefs, they are divided about whether there currently is too much, or too little, in the way of expressions of faith by contemporary political leaders. Roughly comparable numbers say political leaders express their religious beliefs too much (29%), too little (36%) or the right amount (28%).

Other Findings:

• While some social conservatives are expressing changed views about religion and politics, there is little indication that they are changing their voting preferences: John McCain has about as large a lead over Barack Obama among conservatives and white evangelicals as George W. Bush did at this stage in the campaign four years ago.

• Just 28% of white evangelical Protestants say they are strong backers of McCain. Four years ago, 57% of white evangelicals described themselves as strong backers of President Bush.

• As was the case in previous presidential elections, the voting inclinations of Catholic voters - especially white non-Hispanic Catholics - remain fluid. Four years ago at this time John Kerry held a slight edge over Bush among white non-Hispanic Catholics; but he lost that lead by the election. In the current poll, this group, which accounts for 18% of the electorate, is divided almost evenly: 45% support McCain, while 44% favor Obama.

• For the most part, the issues that are important to the public as a whole are also important to particular religious groups. However, social issues, especially gay marriage, continue to be more important for white evangelicals than for other registered voters. Currently, 46% of white evangelicals say gay marriage will be a very important voting issue, compared with 28% of all voters. That is only somewhat less than the percentage of white evangelical voters who viewed gay marriage as very important in October 2004 (49%).

The survey is for immediate release, and is available online at http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=334. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Robbie Mills at 202.419.4564 or rmills@pewforum.org.

This survey is a joint effort of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Both organizations are sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and are projects of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

-----------------------------

Faith is Personal not Political

Jesus was not a political pumdit. He did not come to a social gospel anymore than he did a political gospel. His Agenda was to know God, and to confront you and me about Knowing God.

While his message affects politics, it does by the person and changing the individual. While his message affects society, it does by our attitude change.

The Republican Party or The Democrat Party or the Conservative or the Liberal is not the JESUS sanctioned choice:

He would say

1. Render to the Republicans that things that are republican.
2. Render to the Democrats that things that are democrat.
3. Render to the Conservative that things that are conservative.
4. Render to the Liberal that things that are liberal.

As far as he was concerned,

When you talked about God, None of those above applied.
When you talked about Man, ALL of those above applied.

It's time a person was a Christian First and the rest just commentary.

You are God's.

Render to God, the things that are God's.

Michael James Stone