Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper - OneNewsNow - 1/26/2009 6:40:00 AM
A California tax assessor wants to tax the Catholic Church after Proposition 8 was passed by voters.
LifeSiteNews.com reports Phil Ting, who supports homosexual marriage and fought against Prop. 8, is calling for a $15 million tax after the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco restructured its leadership and consolidated its property nearly seven months ago.
Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a union between one man and one woman, passed last November on California's ballot. It was heavily supported by the Catholic Church as well as the Mormon Church.
The archdiocese responded by filing legal action against Ting, and many traditional marriage supporters are questioning his motives. Randy Thomasson is founder of and president of Campaign for Children and Families.
"Why do we have a First Amendment?" he asks. "Why do we have freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution and the California state constitution?"
Ting's approach, according to Thomasson, is rife with ulterior motives. "If it's not an evil thing that's being done, it's an incompetenence issue thing," he contends. "Well now that homosexual marriage has been stopped at the ballot, it looks like Phil Ting knows who he can get to satisfy his lust to destroy marriage."
Thomasson hopes a higher court will give the case a just analysis.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
U.S. economy predicted to collapse under socialism
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 1/26/2009 7:00:00 AM
A U.K. official says his predictions of economic collapse are coming to pass.
The Telegraph is reporting that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, agrees. He says the Labor Party's continual borrowing for social programs is to blame.
"Every Labor government there has ever been from 1926 to the present day has always ended in exactly the same way because they essentially try to run a communist financial system," he contends, "and it doesn't work any better here than it worked in the Soviet Union."
He adds that hope does not trump experience. "We have politicians who simply haven't had enough experience in the real world before going into politics to know how things run, to know how many beans make five," Monckton notes.
Monckton says U.K. markets are starting to realize that tax revenue is collapsing, which in turn makes investment in debt undesirable.
"So you've got government revenues collapsing and government expenditures rocketing because not only do they have to pay the cost of unemployment and other very lavish benefits for people who are no longer employed," he points out, "they're also having to pay eye-wateringly large sums to bail out the banks whom overspending and over-regulation drove under."
He believes the U.S. is poised for the same collapse should they hold fast to a doctrine of socialism.
"She is a large, and for the time being, a relatively prosperous nation, and I think that the likelihood I'm afraid is that Obama is going to change that for the worse. He has all the kindliness intentions I have no doubt; the left usually do," he adds. "They would love to have motherhood and apple pie, as would we all. But they are so busy working out how to distribute the apple pie, that they never think about the people who are going to have to roll up their sleeves and bake it. And that's the difficulty with socialism. It is all about redistribution and not about generation of wealth."
Monckton says both the U.K. and the U.S. need to return to Margaret Thatcher's "handbag economics," or living within a person's means.
"What it meant was that you always knew you had enough to buy your baked beans because you were careful with your money," he concludes. "And if the government is careful with the people's money, then the people can prosper."
A U.K. official says his predictions of economic collapse are coming to pass.
The Telegraph is reporting that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, agrees. He says the Labor Party's continual borrowing for social programs is to blame.
"Every Labor government there has ever been from 1926 to the present day has always ended in exactly the same way because they essentially try to run a communist financial system," he contends, "and it doesn't work any better here than it worked in the Soviet Union."
He adds that hope does not trump experience. "We have politicians who simply haven't had enough experience in the real world before going into politics to know how things run, to know how many beans make five," Monckton notes.
Monckton says U.K. markets are starting to realize that tax revenue is collapsing, which in turn makes investment in debt undesirable.
"So you've got government revenues collapsing and government expenditures rocketing because not only do they have to pay the cost of unemployment and other very lavish benefits for people who are no longer employed," he points out, "they're also having to pay eye-wateringly large sums to bail out the banks whom overspending and over-regulation drove under."
He believes the U.S. is poised for the same collapse should they hold fast to a doctrine of socialism.
"She is a large, and for the time being, a relatively prosperous nation, and I think that the likelihood I'm afraid is that Obama is going to change that for the worse. He has all the kindliness intentions I have no doubt; the left usually do," he adds. "They would love to have motherhood and apple pie, as would we all. But they are so busy working out how to distribute the apple pie, that they never think about the people who are going to have to roll up their sleeves and bake it. And that's the difficulty with socialism. It is all about redistribution and not about generation of wealth."
Monckton says both the U.K. and the U.S. need to return to Margaret Thatcher's "handbag economics," or living within a person's means.
"What it meant was that you always knew you had enough to buy your baked beans because you were careful with your money," he concludes. "And if the government is careful with the people's money, then the people can prosper."
Friday, January 30, 2009
White House website under "Civil" Rights
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.
Are Conservative Leaders Arising From GOP Mire?
By Christopher G. Adamo
January 29, 2009
The events of the past week should thoroughly scare anyone with an understanding of historical causes and effects. Fortunately for the underwriters of the "new order," most Americans remain blissfully ignorant of the plotting and maneuvering going on inside the Beltway. As long as the network anchors keep force-feeding the people a steady diet of euphoric anecdotes regarding everything Obama, along with the predictable public opinion polls showing that the ruse has gained near universal acceptance, America can continue inexorably on its descent into socialism.
Yet some alarming news items have been very telling as to the intentions of the Democrat ruling class now entrenched at the epicenter of political power. Admittedly, the Republican "opposition" has already capitulated to a far greater degree than ever should have happened, given the unconscionable partisanship of the Democrats over the past eight years. During a grave time of war, Democrats sought every opportunity to tout the strengths of America's enemies, while their most prominent mouthpieces such as Senate Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV), Senator Richard Durbin (D.-IL), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA), and Representative John Murtha (D.-PA) focused almost exclusively on America's weaknesses and failures, whether real or contrived.
Now however, those same purveyors of liberal venom and all of their "mainstream" media accomplices insist that the nation wants nothing but collegiality and acquiescence to the far-left agenda of the Obama Administration. All too often, propaganda ploys of this nature have worked. At many such critical junctures in recent years, the Republican minority has abdicated its principles and cooperated with the left in the name of "bipartisanship," the "new tone," or "ending the rancor."
Even now, with Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership on the brink of squandering nearly a trillion dollars of real America's resources on their obscenely bloated "economic stimulus" bill, some Republicans are vocally castigating the conservatives for refusing to support the effort. Obama has made significant inroads among certain wishy-washy members of the "conservative" punditry, while seeking to isolate and marginalize the voices of real conservatism, most notably Rush Limbaugh.
Many expected the thoroughly shell-shocked Republican remnant on Capitol Hill to roll over for Obama and the Democrats, thus paving the way for even bigger GOP losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. Now however, some signs of a Republican awakening give cause for hope on the right. And, set against an ominous backdrop of liberal expansionism, the time was right for Republicans, despite their inability to numerically dominate the political landscape, to use this occasion to reaffirm their principles and starkly contrast themselves against Democrats.
Moreover, in an effort to advance a crucial element of his Machiavellian political strategy, Obama may have tipped his hand a little too soon, thus betraying his sinister intentions and removing his mask of universal love and popularity that was so meticulously constructed during the past two years. If real Republicans, and indeed any Americans who cherish their country's heritage are taking notice, they can "connect the dots" and realize that the fate of our constitutional republic may hang in the balance, and America's resurgence or collapse may ride on their timidity or ability to stand fast.
It is dangerous to trivialize the significance of Obama's exhortation for Republicans to "stop listening to Rush Limbaugh." In another time, when reason and respectability would have undergirded a president's intention to uphold the Constitution (along with the assurance that the courts and the people would not allow otherwise), a statement of that nature might have been dismissed as casual banter. But Obama has already displayed a willingness to say or do anything, constitutional or otherwise, in order to further his agenda. So the intimidation and silencing of his most vocal critic would certainly not exceed any previous actions.
Not to be excluded from consideration is the liberal obsession with the abominably misnamed "Fairness Doctrine," an Orwellian concept that if implemented would essentially thrash the First Amendment and shut down the nation's airwaves to anything but state-approved political debate. Concerned citizens from across the political spectrum should recognize the threat this measure would pose to all members of a free and open country. And Obama's deliberate effort to center the discussion around Limbaugh, far from being merely a jab at a political rival, represents the first move toward silencing the masses.
This episode serves as a chilling harbinger of what it will take to remain in good standing within Obama's new order. Empty tributes to "bipartisanship" aside, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will accept nothing short of compliance to their agenda.
Republicans who believe in upholding Republican principles are currently backed into a corner. And some are coming back swinging. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R.-OH) is openly voicing his disapproval of the "stimulus" sham. As a result, on Wednesday the measure passed in the House, but without a single Republican vote in support of it.
Similarly, over in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-KS) has likewise excoriated the spending bill, asserting that it will most definitely not help the economy. If McConnell can hold Senate Republicans together as well as Boehner did in the House, responsibility for the binge spending will rest entirely with the Democrats. Both Republican leaders are correctly contending that this unjustifiable level of governmental waste is motivated far more by political interests, and not by any intention to truly spur America's recovery from its current economic plight.
This may be the defining moment for the Republican Party. The bogus "stimulus" bill can, and most likely will, pass in the Senate, as it did in the House, with or without Republican votes. But Democrats need Republican cover in order to lay a fig leaf of "bipartisanship" over their criminal pillaging of the confiscated wealth of America.
This newest "stimulus" will not work any better than the last one. And in its wake the country will be that much poorer for the misbegotten endeavor. A unified Republican opposition to the spending spree would help to sharply define each party as a promoter of run-away spending or a champion of fiscal responsibility. And going into the next election cycle, that is a risk the Democrats cannot afford to take.
Of course the media has reported the House vote as a triumph for Obama. But without GOP collaboration, it will incur an enormous toll on the Democrats once the parades pass by and reality sets in. Congressional and Senate Republicans need to recognize the magnitude of their success and stridently oppose the Democrats on other issues, including domestic drilling for oil and the need to keep healthcare outside of the entanglements of government bureaucracies. By maintaining their resolve, they will be far better positioned to pursue the mid-term elections in 2010.
---
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
January 29, 2009
The events of the past week should thoroughly scare anyone with an understanding of historical causes and effects. Fortunately for the underwriters of the "new order," most Americans remain blissfully ignorant of the plotting and maneuvering going on inside the Beltway. As long as the network anchors keep force-feeding the people a steady diet of euphoric anecdotes regarding everything Obama, along with the predictable public opinion polls showing that the ruse has gained near universal acceptance, America can continue inexorably on its descent into socialism.
Yet some alarming news items have been very telling as to the intentions of the Democrat ruling class now entrenched at the epicenter of political power. Admittedly, the Republican "opposition" has already capitulated to a far greater degree than ever should have happened, given the unconscionable partisanship of the Democrats over the past eight years. During a grave time of war, Democrats sought every opportunity to tout the strengths of America's enemies, while their most prominent mouthpieces such as Senate Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV), Senator Richard Durbin (D.-IL), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA), and Representative John Murtha (D.-PA) focused almost exclusively on America's weaknesses and failures, whether real or contrived.
Now however, those same purveyors of liberal venom and all of their "mainstream" media accomplices insist that the nation wants nothing but collegiality and acquiescence to the far-left agenda of the Obama Administration. All too often, propaganda ploys of this nature have worked. At many such critical junctures in recent years, the Republican minority has abdicated its principles and cooperated with the left in the name of "bipartisanship," the "new tone," or "ending the rancor."
Even now, with Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership on the brink of squandering nearly a trillion dollars of real America's resources on their obscenely bloated "economic stimulus" bill, some Republicans are vocally castigating the conservatives for refusing to support the effort. Obama has made significant inroads among certain wishy-washy members of the "conservative" punditry, while seeking to isolate and marginalize the voices of real conservatism, most notably Rush Limbaugh.
Many expected the thoroughly shell-shocked Republican remnant on Capitol Hill to roll over for Obama and the Democrats, thus paving the way for even bigger GOP losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. Now however, some signs of a Republican awakening give cause for hope on the right. And, set against an ominous backdrop of liberal expansionism, the time was right for Republicans, despite their inability to numerically dominate the political landscape, to use this occasion to reaffirm their principles and starkly contrast themselves against Democrats.
Moreover, in an effort to advance a crucial element of his Machiavellian political strategy, Obama may have tipped his hand a little too soon, thus betraying his sinister intentions and removing his mask of universal love and popularity that was so meticulously constructed during the past two years. If real Republicans, and indeed any Americans who cherish their country's heritage are taking notice, they can "connect the dots" and realize that the fate of our constitutional republic may hang in the balance, and America's resurgence or collapse may ride on their timidity or ability to stand fast.
It is dangerous to trivialize the significance of Obama's exhortation for Republicans to "stop listening to Rush Limbaugh." In another time, when reason and respectability would have undergirded a president's intention to uphold the Constitution (along with the assurance that the courts and the people would not allow otherwise), a statement of that nature might have been dismissed as casual banter. But Obama has already displayed a willingness to say or do anything, constitutional or otherwise, in order to further his agenda. So the intimidation and silencing of his most vocal critic would certainly not exceed any previous actions.
Not to be excluded from consideration is the liberal obsession with the abominably misnamed "Fairness Doctrine," an Orwellian concept that if implemented would essentially thrash the First Amendment and shut down the nation's airwaves to anything but state-approved political debate. Concerned citizens from across the political spectrum should recognize the threat this measure would pose to all members of a free and open country. And Obama's deliberate effort to center the discussion around Limbaugh, far from being merely a jab at a political rival, represents the first move toward silencing the masses.
This episode serves as a chilling harbinger of what it will take to remain in good standing within Obama's new order. Empty tributes to "bipartisanship" aside, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will accept nothing short of compliance to their agenda.
Republicans who believe in upholding Republican principles are currently backed into a corner. And some are coming back swinging. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R.-OH) is openly voicing his disapproval of the "stimulus" sham. As a result, on Wednesday the measure passed in the House, but without a single Republican vote in support of it.
Similarly, over in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-KS) has likewise excoriated the spending bill, asserting that it will most definitely not help the economy. If McConnell can hold Senate Republicans together as well as Boehner did in the House, responsibility for the binge spending will rest entirely with the Democrats. Both Republican leaders are correctly contending that this unjustifiable level of governmental waste is motivated far more by political interests, and not by any intention to truly spur America's recovery from its current economic plight.
This may be the defining moment for the Republican Party. The bogus "stimulus" bill can, and most likely will, pass in the Senate, as it did in the House, with or without Republican votes. But Democrats need Republican cover in order to lay a fig leaf of "bipartisanship" over their criminal pillaging of the confiscated wealth of America.
This newest "stimulus" will not work any better than the last one. And in its wake the country will be that much poorer for the misbegotten endeavor. A unified Republican opposition to the spending spree would help to sharply define each party as a promoter of run-away spending or a champion of fiscal responsibility. And going into the next election cycle, that is a risk the Democrats cannot afford to take.
Of course the media has reported the House vote as a triumph for Obama. But without GOP collaboration, it will incur an enormous toll on the Democrats once the parades pass by and reality sets in. Congressional and Senate Republicans need to recognize the magnitude of their success and stridently oppose the Democrats on other issues, including domestic drilling for oil and the need to keep healthcare outside of the entanglements of government bureaucracies. By maintaining their resolve, they will be far better positioned to pursue the mid-term elections in 2010.
---
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Pelosi should abstain from social engineering.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Speaker Nancy Malthus
One of the more curious items in the $825 billion House "stimulus" is $87 billion to help states with Medicaid, specifically including an expansion of family-planning services. The implication is that more people mean less economic growth.
Following a White House meeting with President Obama on Friday, Republican John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, asked how spending millions of dollars on birth control will help stimulate the economy. On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" repeated the question to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who responded that "family planning services reduce costs."
She added: "The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception -- will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
The notion that a larger population will produce a lower standard of living can be traced to the 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. But during Malthus's own lifetime, his prediction was proved false, as he later acknowledged. Population and living standards rose simultaneously, and have continued to do so.
Ms. Pelosi's remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource. Fewer babies would move the U.S. in the demographic direction of Europe and Asia. On the Continent, birth rates already are effectively zero, and economists are predicting labor shortages in the years ahead. In Japan, where the population is aging very fast, workers are now encouraged to go home early to procreate. Japan is projected to lose 21% of its population by 2050.
The age and growth rate of a nation help determine its economic prosperity. A smaller workforce can result in less overall economic output. Without enough younger workers to replace retirees, health and pension costs can become debilitating. And when domestic markets shrink, so does capital investment. Whatever one's views on taxpayer subsidies for contraception, as economic stimulus the idea is loopy.
Speaker Nancy Malthus
One of the more curious items in the $825 billion House "stimulus" is $87 billion to help states with Medicaid, specifically including an expansion of family-planning services. The implication is that more people mean less economic growth.
Following a White House meeting with President Obama on Friday, Republican John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, asked how spending millions of dollars on birth control will help stimulate the economy. On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" repeated the question to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who responded that "family planning services reduce costs."
She added: "The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception -- will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
The notion that a larger population will produce a lower standard of living can be traced to the 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. But during Malthus's own lifetime, his prediction was proved false, as he later acknowledged. Population and living standards rose simultaneously, and have continued to do so.
Ms. Pelosi's remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource. Fewer babies would move the U.S. in the demographic direction of Europe and Asia. On the Continent, birth rates already are effectively zero, and economists are predicting labor shortages in the years ahead. In Japan, where the population is aging very fast, workers are now encouraged to go home early to procreate. Japan is projected to lose 21% of its population by 2050.
The age and growth rate of a nation help determine its economic prosperity. A smaller workforce can result in less overall economic output. Without enough younger workers to replace retirees, health and pension costs can become debilitating. And when domestic markets shrink, so does capital investment. Whatever one's views on taxpayer subsidies for contraception, as economic stimulus the idea is loopy.
Incidentally, to keep the population stable in the United States, we need 2.1 children born per married couple. We are below that now.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:06 PM
By: David A. Patten
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.
“It is of great concern to me,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. “I think our government has stayed strong because we’ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.”
Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, “Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.”
The three-term congressman stopped short of suggesting the “neighborhood stabilization” money is a power grab by Democrats seeking partisan political advantage. But radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh did not.
Limbaugh warned his listeners Tuesday: “I’ll tell you what’s going on here: We, ladies & gentlemen, we’re funding Obama and the Democrats’ army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat party’s re-election.”
Blackburn echoed the concerns of Republican leaders who object that the bloated package lacks the short-term stimulus a cut in payroll or sales taxes would provide.
According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes:
$1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully.
$10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN’s.
$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations.
Regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Vadum writes in American Spectator: “Although ACORN operatives usually get their hands on such funds only after they have first passed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or state and local governments, the new spending bill largely eliminates these dawdling middle men, making it easier to get Uncle Sam's largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN's various vote fraud and extortion rackets. And the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities.”
The charges of partisan political payback appear to be resonating in part due to Obama’s longstanding association with partisan get-out-the-vote operations. He was endorsed by ACORN, and during the campaign paid an ACORN affiliate $832,600 to get-out-the-vote assistance. Early in his career, he led a voter drive for an ACORN-affiliated group called Project Vote.
It’s not the first time ACORN has been entangled in a bailout controversy. In September, House Republicans objected that the original $700 billion bailout package included $100 million for ACORN – a tiny fraction of the sums for ACORN now being considered in the stimulus package.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By: David A. Patten
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.
“It is of great concern to me,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. “I think our government has stayed strong because we’ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.”
Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, “Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.”
The three-term congressman stopped short of suggesting the “neighborhood stabilization” money is a power grab by Democrats seeking partisan political advantage. But radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh did not.
Limbaugh warned his listeners Tuesday: “I’ll tell you what’s going on here: We, ladies & gentlemen, we’re funding Obama and the Democrats’ army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat party’s re-election.”
Blackburn echoed the concerns of Republican leaders who object that the bloated package lacks the short-term stimulus a cut in payroll or sales taxes would provide.
According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes:
$1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully.
$10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN’s.
$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations.
Regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Vadum writes in American Spectator: “Although ACORN operatives usually get their hands on such funds only after they have first passed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or state and local governments, the new spending bill largely eliminates these dawdling middle men, making it easier to get Uncle Sam's largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN's various vote fraud and extortion rackets. And the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities.”
The charges of partisan political payback appear to be resonating in part due to Obama’s longstanding association with partisan get-out-the-vote operations. He was endorsed by ACORN, and during the campaign paid an ACORN affiliate $832,600 to get-out-the-vote assistance. Early in his career, he led a voter drive for an ACORN-affiliated group called Project Vote.
It’s not the first time ACORN has been entangled in a bailout controversy. In September, House Republicans objected that the original $700 billion bailout package included $100 million for ACORN – a tiny fraction of the sums for ACORN now being considered in the stimulus package.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Homosexual sympathizers grab MLK's coattails
Allie Martin - OneNewsNow - 1/21/2009 6:40:00 AM
A pro-family activist says it's outrageous that those pushing for a human-rights ordinance in a Pennsylvania county are invoking the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for their cause.
Last week the Allegheny County Council held a public meeting on a proposal to create a county-wide human relations commission and add to a human-rights ordinance the phrase: "actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity." During the meeting, Dr. King's name was invoked many times by those who support the ordinance.
Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, says it is clear that Dr. King would never have equated civil rights with special rights for homosexuals.
"There's no evidence that he viewed so-called 'gay rights' as a civil rights issue," says Gramley. "In fact, we have his youngest daughter, Bernice, saying her father did not take a bullet for gay rights; and his niece, Alveda King, saying that her uncle was a man of God and...would not preach that homosexual acts are acceptable in God's sight."
The Pittsburgh City Council has encouraged members of the Allegheny County Council to adopt the ordinance.
A pro-family activist says it's outrageous that those pushing for a human-rights ordinance in a Pennsylvania county are invoking the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for their cause.
Last week the Allegheny County Council held a public meeting on a proposal to create a county-wide human relations commission and add to a human-rights ordinance the phrase: "actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity." During the meeting, Dr. King's name was invoked many times by those who support the ordinance.
Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, says it is clear that Dr. King would never have equated civil rights with special rights for homosexuals.
"There's no evidence that he viewed so-called 'gay rights' as a civil rights issue," says Gramley. "In fact, we have his youngest daughter, Bernice, saying her father did not take a bullet for gay rights; and his niece, Alveda King, saying that her uncle was a man of God and...would not preach that homosexual acts are acceptable in God's sight."
The Pittsburgh City Council has encouraged members of the Allegheny County Council to adopt the ordinance.
Change we never imagined
Matt Barber - 1/23/2009 10:00:00 AM
Well, the high-sheen veneer and cult-of-personality euphoria surrounding America's new oratory endowed president looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political "messiah," it's fast becoming evident that, instead, we've stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of "change we can believe in" is, in fact, "change we never imagined." (Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.)
The examples are piling up in terms of the radical pro-abortion polices he's planning to implement, the many-times-failed Marxist fiscal policies he's promised to test yet again, and – relative to his national security goals – the noxiously naive peacenik policies that have Mahmoud and Osama giggling themselves to sleep at night.
But on issues involving marriage, family and sexual morality, Obama's been even more brazen than some of his most ardent detractors could have expected. (See related article) Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of "The Agenda: Civil Rights" – to detail his wholesale "support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community." His stated plans include the following:
Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by "gay marriage" activists.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called "same-sex marriages" from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy despite the fact that the vast majority of military commanders and personnel say it will dangerously disrupt unit cohesion and troop morale.
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral.
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law.
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding "gay adoption."
The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the chute, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.
The radical homosexual agenda and religious/free-speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It's a zero-sum game. When 1-2 percent of the population is granted exclusive rights based on the aforementioned deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors – to the detriment of everyone else – that's called tyranny of the minority.
Obama recently said, "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America." Well, Mr. President, remember that whole actions versus words cliché? Your words ring hollow and your actions speak volumes. Every policy you promise to implement does exactly what you've denounced. Both your actions and your words very much pit Red America against Blue America.
For all the talk of "hope," "change," and "coming together," it's becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama's administration will be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory. I suspect the immediate, stark and in-your-face revisions he's made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of broader policy, from his administration.
Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: "Change doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man's skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).
So it would seem that change does in fact "come from Washington." Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.
People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years.
Well, the high-sheen veneer and cult-of-personality euphoria surrounding America's new oratory endowed president looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political "messiah," it's fast becoming evident that, instead, we've stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of "change we can believe in" is, in fact, "change we never imagined." (Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.)
The examples are piling up in terms of the radical pro-abortion polices he's planning to implement, the many-times-failed Marxist fiscal policies he's promised to test yet again, and – relative to his national security goals – the noxiously naive peacenik policies that have Mahmoud and Osama giggling themselves to sleep at night.
But on issues involving marriage, family and sexual morality, Obama's been even more brazen than some of his most ardent detractors could have expected. (See related article) Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of "The Agenda: Civil Rights" – to detail his wholesale "support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community." His stated plans include the following:
Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by "gay marriage" activists.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called "same-sex marriages" from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy despite the fact that the vast majority of military commanders and personnel say it will dangerously disrupt unit cohesion and troop morale.
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral.
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law.
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding "gay adoption."
The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the chute, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.
The radical homosexual agenda and religious/free-speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It's a zero-sum game. When 1-2 percent of the population is granted exclusive rights based on the aforementioned deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors – to the detriment of everyone else – that's called tyranny of the minority.
Obama recently said, "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America." Well, Mr. President, remember that whole actions versus words cliché? Your words ring hollow and your actions speak volumes. Every policy you promise to implement does exactly what you've denounced. Both your actions and your words very much pit Red America against Blue America.
For all the talk of "hope," "change," and "coming together," it's becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama's administration will be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory. I suspect the immediate, stark and in-your-face revisions he's made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of broader policy, from his administration.
Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: "Change doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man's skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).
So it would seem that change does in fact "come from Washington." Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.
People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years.
California Assembly seems to be ignoring passage of Proposition 8.
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/25/2009 4:00:00 AM
According to Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, resolutions and bills introduced before the Assembly seem to indicate that passage of the pro-traditional marriage initiative means little in the state capital.
"The homosexual activists never stop claiming to be victims, even when they have an iron stiletto heel upon your neck. They will claim that they are being victimized by you," he contends. "They're intolerant, and now they're pushing even more legislation in the California government."
Proposition 8 protects traditional marriage, but Thomasson says one of the bills indicates activists are ignoring it. "What they're doing is trying to say that homosexuals who even refuse to register as domestic partners...should get all the rights of marriage if there is a death and a property tax issue," he explains.
Two resolutions put the Assembly on record against the outcome of Proposition 8 and recommend that the state Supreme Court overturn it.
According to Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, resolutions and bills introduced before the Assembly seem to indicate that passage of the pro-traditional marriage initiative means little in the state capital.
"The homosexual activists never stop claiming to be victims, even when they have an iron stiletto heel upon your neck. They will claim that they are being victimized by you," he contends. "They're intolerant, and now they're pushing even more legislation in the California government."
Proposition 8 protects traditional marriage, but Thomasson says one of the bills indicates activists are ignoring it. "What they're doing is trying to say that homosexuals who even refuse to register as domestic partners...should get all the rights of marriage if there is a death and a property tax issue," he explains.
Two resolutions put the Assembly on record against the outcome of Proposition 8 and recommend that the state Supreme Court overturn it.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama condemned for expanding taxpayer funded abortions
Matthew Lee and Liz Sidoti - Associated Press Writers - 1/24/2009 6:50:00 AM
WASHINGTON - As he promised during the election campaign, Barack Obama on Friday struck down a ban against taxpayer funded abortions abroad.
Obama's move was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by defenders of unborn children.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," the president said.
Obama issued the presidential memorandum rescinding the Bush policy without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon.
The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's announcement Wednesday on ethics rules and Thursday's signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.
Pro-life groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas - something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).
The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.
WASHINGTON - As he promised during the election campaign, Barack Obama on Friday struck down a ban against taxpayer funded abortions abroad.
Obama's move was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by defenders of unborn children.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," the president said.
Obama issued the presidential memorandum rescinding the Bush policy without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon.
The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's announcement Wednesday on ethics rules and Thursday's signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.
Pro-life groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas - something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).
The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Pro-lifers push to 'stop subsidizing' abortion industry
This should be done in every state... No organization, especially one so controversial, should be funded by taxpayer's dollars. They turn a pretty hefty profit for a non-profit organization. Taxpayers will be paying enough money for this ridiculous "bailout".
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/4/2009 5:00:00 AM
A Kansas state senator wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
Republican Senator Tim Huelskamp explains why he believes it is time to drop funding of the abortion provider. "Planned Parenthood has been under criminal investigation for nearly a year now, and they've found probable cause to have committed 107 misdemeanor and felony counts in our state," he contends.
On a national level, Planned Parenthood gets many millions of federal tax dollars and makes a sizeable profit, even though it is a nonprofit organization. "It makes no sense that hundreds of thousands of pro-life Kansans have to fork over more than $550,000 to this organization," he adds. "That's the amount we've discovered."
Huelskamp is submitting a bill to the Kansas legislature to defund the abortion provider. "I think it's time to stop subsidizing the actions of an organization that operates under a cloud of suspicion and scandal," he concludes.
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/4/2009 5:00:00 AM
A Kansas state senator wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
Republican Senator Tim Huelskamp explains why he believes it is time to drop funding of the abortion provider. "Planned Parenthood has been under criminal investigation for nearly a year now, and they've found probable cause to have committed 107 misdemeanor and felony counts in our state," he contends.
On a national level, Planned Parenthood gets many millions of federal tax dollars and makes a sizeable profit, even though it is a nonprofit organization. "It makes no sense that hundreds of thousands of pro-life Kansans have to fork over more than $550,000 to this organization," he adds. "That's the amount we've discovered."
Huelskamp is submitting a bill to the Kansas legislature to defund the abortion provider. "I think it's time to stop subsidizing the actions of an organization that operates under a cloud of suspicion and scandal," he concludes.
Let's Hope There is No Flip-Flopping On This Issue
So far, both Obama and Hillary have used pro-Israel rhetoric. I'm hoping and praying that does not change, as so many things do... but I do have to applaud their views, thus far, on this front.
In a July interview with The New York Times, Obama said he did not think that "any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.
"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," he said. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
As for talking with Hamas, Obama told the Times that it was "very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries."
But Obama is also set to benefit from a positive reception in the Middle East, where his election fueled hopes for change in US foreign policy in the region, seen as tilted toward Israel and US-backed Arab regimes in countries such as Egypt and Jordan.
Hillary Clinton, Obama's incoming secretary of state pending Senate confirmation, staunchly supported Israel during her tenure as senator from New York, which has a large Jewish constituency.
"The next president must be ready to say to the world: America's position is unchanging, our resolve unyielding, our stance non-negotiable," Clinton told the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC in June.
In a July interview with The New York Times, Obama said he did not think that "any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.
"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," he said. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
As for talking with Hamas, Obama told the Times that it was "very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries."
But Obama is also set to benefit from a positive reception in the Middle East, where his election fueled hopes for change in US foreign policy in the region, seen as tilted toward Israel and US-backed Arab regimes in countries such as Egypt and Jordan.
Hillary Clinton, Obama's incoming secretary of state pending Senate confirmation, staunchly supported Israel during her tenure as senator from New York, which has a large Jewish constituency.
"The next president must be ready to say to the world: America's position is unchanging, our resolve unyielding, our stance non-negotiable," Clinton told the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC in June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
