In Defense of Truth

Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory "decontaminations"

2009-09-05T18:25:00.000-07:00

Here is the website with the new proposed Massachusettes bill.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf

MEDICINE AND HEALTH: Here's a second opinion

2009-08-03T18:02:00.000-07:00

By Scott W. Atlas

Ten reasons why America’s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. By Scott W. Atlas.

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

This essay appeared on the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis on March 24, 2009. An earlier version was published in the Washington Times.

Available from the Hoover Press is Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions, edited by Scott W. Atlas. To order, call 800.935.2882 or visit www.hooverpress.org.

Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.

Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’

2009-07-30T17:02:00.000-07:00

The terrorist sues to resume his jihad from prison. The Obama administration caves in.

By DEBRA BURLINGAME

Last May at the National Archives, President Barack Obama warned that “more mistakes would occur” if Congress continued to politicize terrorist detention policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “[I]f we refuse to deal with those issues today,” he predicted, “then I guarantee you, they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.”

On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when “there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others.

Reid was arrested in 2001 for attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with 197 passengers and crew on board. Why had Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to renew his security measures, kept in place since 2002?

According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily “group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.” Yet the list of Reid’s potential fellow congregants at ADX Florence reads like a Who’s Who of al Qaeda’s most dangerous members: Ramzi Yousef and his three co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam; “Dirty bomber” Jose Padilla; Wadih el-Hage, Osama Bin Laden’s personal secretary, convicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 247 people.

In December 2008, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Reid’s lawsuit. It cited the example of ADX inmate Ahmed Ajaj as an illustration of “the dangers inherent in permitting a group of inmates, of like mind in their opposition to the United States, to congregate for a prayer service conducted in a language not understood by most correctional officers.”

While imprisoned for passport fraud in 1992, Ajaj assisted in the plans to destroy the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, making phone calls to Ramzi Yousef and speaking in code to elude law enforcement monitoring. Ajaj tried to get his “training kit” to Yousef, which included videotapes and notes he had taken on bomb-making while attending a terrorist camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Reid’s own SAMs on correspondence had been tightened in 2006 after the shocking discovery that three of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers at ADX, not subject to security directives, had sent 90 letters to overseas terrorist networks, including those associated with the Madrid train bombing. The letters, exhorting jihad and praising Osama bin Laden as “my hero of this generation,” were printed in Arabic newspapers and brandished like trophies to recruit new members.

When setting restrictions on inmate religious practice, the Bureau of Prisons need only meet a reasonableness standard, a very low bar in the case of Muslim terrorists. Justice would easily have prevailed against Reid’s lawsuit; nevertheless it dropped the security measures on Reid after he missed 58 meals in a hunger strike that required medical intervention and forced feeding in April.

On July 6, Justice Department lawyers informed the court that Reid will be given a “new placement” in a “post-SAMs setting.” Whether that entails stepped down security in a different unit or transfer to a less secure facility, the Bureau of Prisons won’t say, and Justice refuses to comment.

Mr. Obama likes to observe that “no one has escaped from supermax,” but if Reid is moved from ADX Florence, he will be the first convicted terrorist to use the First Amendment to sue his way out.

What drove the Obama administration’s decision to cave in to Reid’s demands? The president after all has repeatedly pitched supermax and the federal prison system as a secure alternative to Guantanamo, citing the fact that it handles “all manner of violent and dangerous criminals.” Yet the last thing he needs, as his administration engages in its hasty effort to shut Gitmo down by a fast-approaching deadline, is for lawyers and human-rights activists to use a hunger-striking, near-death prisoner to launch a propaganda campaign fashioned right out of the Gitmo detainees’ playbook. Lawyers who shamelessly compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps would think nothing of casting supermax as the next “symbol of America’s shame” and a “rallying cry for our enemies.”

From the outset of his administration, Mr. Obama has been trying to thread the needle between national security policy and his ideological affinity with civil liberties lawyers and human-rights activists, meeting with and consulting them prior to making detainee-related decisions. Though his executive order shutting Guantanamo closely followed the blueprint provided by Human Rights First, leaders of key organizations were stunned when he revealed in an awkward, off-the-record meeting the day before his public announcement at the National Archives that he planned to continue President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive detention.

Michael Ratner, whose human rights organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed the first successful detainee lawsuit in 2002, called Mr. Obama’s proposed U.S. detention scheme a “road to perdition” and nothing more than a plan to “repackage Guantanamo.” Leaders of the so-called Gitmo bar appear poised to launch a flurry of legal challenges the moment the last departing detainee’s feet touch U.S. soil.

In January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado issued a statement saying that conditions at supermax are “simply another form of torture” worse than Gitmo which “make a mockery of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’” Last month, the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit mirroring Reid’s religious rights claim on behalf of two terrorism inmates held at the Communications Management Unit inside a medium security prison in Terre Haute, Ind.

One of those inmates is Enaam Arnaout, a Syrian-born U.S. citizen serving a 10-year sentence for diverting Muslim charity money to militant Islamic groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. The other, Randall Royer, is serving 20 years for his role recruiting young Muslims in the “Virginia Jihad Network,” a group that used paintball games in 2000-2001 to train for holy war.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly suggested that the security challenge of bringing more than 100 trained and dangerous terrorists onto U.S. soil can be solved by simply installing them in an impenetrable fortress. This view is either disingenuous or naïve. The militant Islamists at Guantanamo too dangerous to release believe that their resistance behind the wire is a continuation of holy war. There is every reason to believe they will continue their jihad once they have been transported to U.S. soil where certain federal judges have signaled a willingness to confer upon them even more rights.

The position of civil rights activists with regard to these prisoners is plain. “If they cannot be convicted,” says ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer, “then you release them.”

Meanwhile, in order to appease political constituencies both here and abroad, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead, operating on the false premise that giving more civil liberties to religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization will make a difference in the Muslim world. In a letter sent to his father as he began his hunger strike, Reid provided a preview of how he will exercise his newly enlarged free speech rights, calling Mr. Obama a “hypocrite” who is “no better than George Bush.” His lawsuit remains active while the Department of Justice works out a settlement that satisfies the man who declared, “I am at war with America.”

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Obama's '47 Million Uninsured' Claim Is False

2009-07-27T18:59:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama claimed during his Wednesday night press conference that there are 47 million Americans without health insurance.

A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.

Obama said: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance."

That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007." The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S.

The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.

However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners — foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 — included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million.

And of those, "there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance," CNSNews stated in a report based on the Census Bureau data.

That brings the number of Americans who lack health insurance presumably for financial reasons down less than 27 million.

The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year — from 47 million to 45.65 million — while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million.

The next Census Bureau report disclosing health insurance data, with 2008 numbers, is scheduled to be released in August, and could figure in the healthcare reform debate.

Still No Apology, Obama Offers a Beer

2009-07-27T18:48:00.001-07:00

Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 27, 2009 at 7:06 am

Barack Obama may have tried to divert attention from his falling popularity or his troubled health care bill by commenting on the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates, but I don't think this is the attention he had in mind. By saying the police acted "stupidly," without even knowing the facts in the case, Obama showed that he is never too shy to get involved in questions of race, especially if it allows him to rant about how bad some people in this country still have it.

Except for groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama's comments have been soundly criticized. Yet, he has still not apologized publicly to Police Sgt. James Crowley, who, by all accounts, acted professionally and "by the book" in responding to a call by a neighbor regarding a possible break-in at Gates' home. Instead, Obama has invited Gates and Crowley to share a beer with him at the White House. How lovely... Throw out a comment about how racist America still is and then make light about it by inviting folks over for a beer.

For a review of the incident involving Gates and Crowley, please see my previous posting in The Loft.

As FOXNews.com reports, "President Obama's highly anticipated sit-down with Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. over some brews is expected to take place early this week, administration officials said Sunday."

The blowup has dominated national attention just as Obama tries to marshal public pressure to get Congress to push through health care overhaul legislation ... and as polls show growing doubts about his performance.

Obama walked back his comments Friday at a surprise appearance at a White House daily briefing and announced he had spoken with Crowley on the phone and invited him to the White House for a beer with Gates. Gates accepted the invitation later that day.

"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up," Obama said of the racial controversy on Friday. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."

Calibrated those words differently??? How about using the bully pulpit to apologize to Sgt. Crowley for your ridiculous comments? Obama's statement at last Wednesday's press conference was so far off base, it really makes you wonder what's going on. The Crowley-Gates incident had nothing to do with the police using racial profiling. In this case, the officer was responding to a call by a neighbor. However, in his comments, Obama brought up how Blacks and Hispanics have traditionally been profiled. This has nothing to do with the case!

As CNSNews.com reports, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have stepped in and are saying that "the recent arrest of a black professor for disorderly conduct was a case of 'racial profiling' and that President Barack Obama's remarks at his Wednesday night press conference saying the police had acted 'stupidly' was an apt description."

Give me a break! These are the types of comments, both by Obama and the caucus that do more to hurt race relations than ANYTHING Sgt. Crowley did.

And just who is Professor Henry Louis Gates? Here's an example of what he had to say back in 1996 regarding "white, racist institutions." Note his comments about then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

If a police officer is investigating a call about a possible break-in, then how about letting the police officer do his job rather than calling him a racist. Are the police only allowed to arrest white people?

What is so frustrating is that Obama was said by the media to be the first "post racial" president. Yet, he does more to divide America based on race than any I've witnessed. His comments keep us looking backward rather than to a better future. And now he wants folks over for a beer? What happens when he makes his next stupid comment or blasts another person for doing his or her job? Have a pizza party?

Barack Obama Insults Innocent Police Officer

2009-07-27T17:32:00.000-07:00

Picture this: Your neighbor's house has been broken into in the past. Today, you look out your window, and you see someone breaking into it again. You call 911. The police arrive, go into the house, and confront the man who was breaking and entering. The man claims he lives there and his front door was "jammed"; when the officer asks for his identification, the man (who is African-American) begins screaming at the officer (who is White) and accusing him of being a "racist" for questioning him. The officer tells him to calm down, and when the man doesn't, the officer arrests him -- not for breaking and entering, but for disorderly conduct.

Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Case closed...

...Unless the man is a friend of President Barack Obama.

This incident, as you've probably heard, actually happened. The place was Cambridge, MA. The man was Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a prominent scholar at Harvard University known for past radical and racially-charged speeches -- and a long-time friend of President Obama. And the arresting officer was Sgt. James Crowley, a decorated police officer who has even taught other policemen how to avoid any sort of racial profiling.

Obama could have stayed completely out of this incident... but instead, he chose to INSULT this police officer and inject accusations of RACISM into what should have been a local matter -- just because Gates was his friend. And now, Obama refuses to apologize!

This is OUTRAGEOUS!

Here are the facts: Prof. Gates had returned from China on Thursday to the Cambridge home that Gates rents from Harvard, and discovered his front door jammed. He opened his back door with his key and tried unsuccessfully from inside his home to open the front door. Eventually, Gates and his driver forced the door open from the outside.

A neighbor called 911 and reported seeing two black men trying to force open the front door. Sgt. Crowley was first to respond to the home, and asked Gates to step outside. Gates refused to step outside to speak with the officer, and when Sgt. Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I"m a black man in America?" Sgt. Crowley, understandably, was quite surprised and confused with the behavior Gates exhibited toward him.

Gates eventually produced a Harvard identification card, prompting Crowley to radio for Harvard University Police. Gates followed the officer outside and continued to accuse him of racial bias. Amongst other egregious acts, Prof. Gates told Sgt. Crowley "I'll speak with your mama outside;" after Crowley warned the professor twice that he was becoming disorderly, the officer finally arrested Gates for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space." He was released from police custody Thursday evening after spending four hours at the police station, and the charges were dropped.

So what happened next? President Obama decided to "come to the rescue" of his old friend, at a prime-time press conference on Wednesday evening. After stating that, "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here -- I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident," he went on to say that "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. Then, he linked the arrest to racial profiling, saying that "there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately… race remains a factor in this society."

WHAT??? This incident had NOTHING to do with race or racial profiling -- it had EVERYTHING to do with a cop doing his duty, and a liberal professor with a racial chip on his shoulder disrespecting the very people he ought to be thanking for stepping up to protect his property!

This shouldn't be a surprise, though -- this is the same Prof. Gates who once gave a speech in which he used the N-word, railed against "racist historically white institutions in America" and accused Newt Gingrich of attempting to block blacks from entering the middle class.

And Barack Obama had the audacity to defend Gates, and attack Sgt. Crowley!

Barack Obama has had a chance to apologize; but instead, he gave one of his typical weasel-word statements: "in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently." Then his White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, announced that "the president regrets that the media have gotten all worked up over the controversy and been distracted from other more substantive issues such as health care."

What? "I could have calibrated those words differently"? It's somehow everyone else's fault, and not Obama's? How "calibrating" words like these: "I acted stupidly when I insulted the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley, and I apologize for doing so."

Is that so hard?

It's not like Barack Obama doesn't know HOW to apologize -- he recently spent quite a who lot of time apologizing for the United States itself, all over the world! Niles Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, even put together a "Top 10 Obama Apologies" list recently:

Apology to Europe: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3
Apology to the Muslim world: Interview with Al Arabiya, January 27.
Apology to the Summit of the Americas: Address to the Summit of the Americas, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17.
Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: News conference in London, April 2.
Apology for the War on Terror: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21.
Apology for Guantanamo in France: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3.
Apology for America before the Turkish Parliament: Speech to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6.
Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: Editorial "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16.
Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: Remarks to CIA employees at Langley, Va., April 29.
Apology for Guantanamo: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21.

Apparently, Barack Obama can apologize to everyone in the world... except the decorated police sergeant he deliberately insulted last week.

Barack Obama obviously needs a little "help" in being reminded how to apologize -- and we've got a GREAT way to get that "help" going!

Barack Obama should not be given some sort of "free pass" for his outrageous remarks against a decorated police officer, just because it was his friend who was arrested for his own stupid remarks and behavior. Thankfully, there are Members of Congress who agree.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) has introduced a House resolution demanding Obama retract and apologize for the remarks he made about Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley. The draft of the resolution reads:

Whereas on July 16, 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley responded to a 911 call from a neighbor of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis ("Skip") Gates, Jr. about a suspected break-in in progress at his residence, which had been broken into on a prior occasion;
Whereas on July 22, 2009, in responding to a question during a White House press conference President Barack Obama stated: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident";
Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;
Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;
Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; and
Whereas, President Obama appeared at a daily White House Press briefing on July 24, 2009 to address his denouncement of Sergeant Crowley and stated: "I could have calibrated those words differently" but "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."
Whereas, President Obama's refusal to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Sergeant Crowley and, instead, reiterate his accusation impugning Sergeant Crowley's professional conduct in the performance of his duties; Now therefore be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
Calls upon President Obama to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley for having unfairly impugned and prejudged his professional conduct in this local police response incident.

This is exactly the "kick in the pants" that Barack Obama needs right now to show him that the American people are watching him, and that he can't get away with these kinds of lies and racially-charged insults.

This whole incident isn't about "racial profiling." This is about working Americans versus Harvard educated elites; post racial Americans versus race baiters; and law abiding citizens and law enforcement officials versus those who think they are above the law.

Comedian Bill Cosby, asked about President Obama"s statement on a Boston radio interview, summed up the situation succinctly, saying, "If I'm the president of the United States, I don't care how much pressure people want to put on it about race, I'm keeping my mouth shut."

President Obama needs to apologize for impugning the professional conduct of Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley.

Chris Matthews Wrong on Obama Birth Certificate

2009-07-24T16:12:00.001-07:00

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:33 PM

By: Jim Meyers

MSNBC's Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama's birth certificate — or lack of one.

Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.

“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president, based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.

Campbell is not a “birther” and never has claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president.

On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama never has released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it.

But Matthews made a false claim. Obama never has released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, which state authorities often provide in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certification of live birth.

Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."

Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate.

Case closed?

The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there.

Instead, his campaign has released only his certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certification of live birth.

As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.

The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.

Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.

Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:

Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.

Chris Matthews, get your facts straight and demand full disclosure — that’s the best way to keep an honest government.

Rationing for dummies

2009-07-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

Robert Knight - Guest Columnist - 7/21/2009 9:30:00 AM

It's beginning to sink in that Obama's nationalized healthcare will lead directly to rationing, which Americans desire about as much as a case of salmonella.

The president told five governors last month to avoid the term "rationing," since it might give away the game. But the word keeps popping up, so it was time for a more aggressive approach -- embracing it!

Out came one of the Left's big guns, Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, to fire away in the July 19 New York Times Magazine with a long article, "Why We Must Ration Health Care."

Singer -- known for such gems as, "The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval," and "An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable" -- says rationing is already here in different forms. Hence, we have nothing to fear from men in white coats directed by government bureaucrats.

Written to allay our fears, the article instead provides plenty of insight into the rationality of rationing and why Americans might want to drop what they're doing, grab pitchforks and torches, and descend upon Washington to slay this Frankenstein monster.

Singer, who advocates the right of parents to kill their newborns even several days later if the babies disappoint them, poses a series of ethical dilemmas that resemble the lifeboat analogy. The boat is sinking and holds only so many. Who stays aboard and who's thrown to the sharks? Here's one of his scenarios, which should give cold comfort to senior citizens and those who love them:
"As a first take, we might say that the good achieved by health care is the number of lives saved. But that is too crude. The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. We can accommodate that difference by calculating the number of life-years saved, rather than simply the number of lives saved. If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving her life counts as a gain of 70 life-years, whereas if a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will count as a gain of only 5 life-years."
He allows that some teens might be vicious felons and some 85-year-olds productive citizens, but you get the idea. To sort all this out, Singer says bureaucrats could employ the quality-adjusted life-year, or QALY, a unit of measurement used for 30 years by health planners. How else can you make Solomon-like decisions between disabled newborns, injured 20-somethings, and cancer-stricken seniors?

But Singer admits that QALY has drawbacks, such as being too ham-handed (my word). He raises the question of whether to spend thousands on a rare drug for Jack Rosser, a real-life British terminal cancer patient and the father of a young child: "Whether decisions about allocating health care resources should take such personal circumstances into account isn't easy to decide. Not to do so makes the standard inflexible, but taking personal factors into account increases the scope for subjective -- and prejudiced -- judgments."

This is precisely why we don't want bureaucratic bean-counters calling all the shots. Or someone like Singer, who sees people as talking animals, not precious, unique beings created in the image of God. Singer explores more ethical dilemmas, such as whether quadriplegics would choose to give up a year or two of life in exchange for a cured, shorter existence. He uses this to question whether all human lives are sacred.

"This method of preserving our belief that everyone has an equal right to life is, however, a double-edged sword. If life with quadriplegia is as good as life without it, there is no health benefit to be gained by curing it."

Huh? Singer seems to be confusing the value of life with quality of life, which can take us down the slippery path toward purification of the race and other horrors.

He follows with another false dilemma: "Disability advocates, it seems, are forced to choose between insisting that extending their lives is just as important as extending the lives of people without disabilities, and seeking public support for research into a cure for their condition."

Can't they do both? Why are they forced to choose?

In the movie The Princess Bride, the hero listens to a villain's bizarre, irrational rambling and generously says, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

You need one of those to explain why Americans should give up a first-class health system and adopt one resembling the warm, inviting embrace of an IRS auditor's office -- complete with needles.

Facts You Need to Know about the Health Care Bill

2009-07-20T08:43:00.000-07:00

Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 17, 2009 at 7:25 am

As you can see from today's array of columns from writers across the country, the big concern is what is happening with the health care bill moving its way through Congress.

The bill is wrong on so many levels, and conservative writers and pundits are doing an excellent job in letting Americans know the endless array of big-government, freedom-grabbing, soak-the-rich provisions that Obama and company want to impose on the American people. Here are some of the facts you should know:

Fact: The Obama plan will lead to higher costs.

As noted by the Associated Press, "Democrats' health care bills won't meet President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress' budget umpire warned on Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the bank."

Explained Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Even if the legislation doesn't add to the federal deficit over the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace.

Fact: The Health Care bill sets up a host of new bureaucracies in typical big-government fashion.

Just click on this link for a larger view of the image above. This is what Barack Obama and the Democrats want to impose on America. New agencies, new divisions, new "czars," new administrators, new rules, new regulations, new costs. Does anyone out there really think this will be more efficient?

Fact: The "Public Option" for health insurance is the first step in a complete government take-over of health care.

For those who haven't been following this issue, the "public option" is the term being used for government-run health insurance. The Democrats want to get the government involved in the insurance business by setting up an agency to compete with private insurance companies. Their claim is that the government-run insurance agency will promote competition and lower costs.

In the short term, could it promote competition and lower costs? Absolutely. It is run by the federal government. They can determine whatever prices they want for a policy. Since it is driven by taxpayer funding, it is not subject to market rules of supply and demand. Thus, the government could come in with lower prices and force private insurers to compete. The results could mean short term lower rates, but what happens next?

As CNSNews.com reports, "Obama’s federal plan would essentially operate like a massive version of Medicare, the government-run plan for seniors which cost 3.2 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008 and which will become insolvent for the first time this year."

Essentially, the government will say how much insurance will cost for a particular type of person dependent upon whom that person is, how old they are, and how healthy they are. Further, the public plan would not have to be solvent. This means that unlike every other private plan, the federal plan could operate at a loss and still remain in business.

Please read the above paragraph again carefully. What it means is that Obama and company could set insurance prices so low that private insurers couldn't compete at all... thus being driven out of business. The government-run insurance doesn't have to turn a profit. They can run in the red and still keep going. Once the private insurers have folded, the only thing left is government-run insurance. With premiums that are unsustainably low (unfunded), this means the burden will fall on taxpayers to make up the deficit. So, less freedom AND more taxes.... that is the result.

There are so many "facts" about this bill that are bad for the American people. I encourage you to leave a comment with more of the facts that you find. All Americans need to be made aware of what is possibly coming and doing everything we can to stop it.

Action Alert: Hands Off My Health Care Decisions!

Please click the link above to contact Congress and tell them to vote NO on the health care bill.

Government Health-Care Plantation Looms

2009-07-20T08:15:00.000-07:00

By Star Parker
July 20, 2009

What is now being billed as health care reform is but the latest chapter in a process I described in an earlier column as "Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation."

Rather than moving dysfunctional America off the welfare state, as we did with welfare reform in 1996, we are now moving the free, functioning, and once prosperous part of our nation onto the welfare state.

Bills out of committees in both the House and the Senate contain all the elements of President Obama's dream to get as many Americans onto the government health care plantation as possible.

We've got creation of the new government run insurance plan that supposedly will create new competition. We've got fines on employers who don't provide insurance and fines on individuals who don't buy it.

And we've got the trillions of dollars in new spending to subsidize insurance purchases for low to middle income Americans and expand Medicaid to get more low income Americans into it.

And, of course, we've got the massive new government bureaucracy to oversee it all.

Obama continues to tell the many millions of Americans currently insured through their employer not to worry, that "If you like your health care plan you can keep that..."

But we know this is a slight of hand. Many employers will gladly pay the fine and purge their employees into the government plan. And how will private plans possibly compete with the government plan when politicians can reach into taxpayer pockets anytime they want to keep on subsidizing it?

The Lewin Group estimates that a hundred twenty million Americans may be driven into the government plan.

And the idea that a government plan will keep, in the words of our president, "insurance companies honest"?

We've already got half the country on government health care through Medicare and Medicaid.

Harvard's Malcom Sparrow, a specialist in health-care fraud, estimates annual Medicare fraud at $85 billion.

The Government Accountability Office estimates Medicaid fraud at around $33 billion annually.

So that's $120 billion a year in government health care fraud! This is who will keep private companies ''honest?''

It defies logic and experience that we will save money and deliver better health care by expanding government control and spending.

Congressional Budget Office head Douglas Elmendorf confirms as such. CBO now estimates this proposed reform will require a trillion dollars in new expenditures and that rather than lowering the "cost curve", "the curve is being raised."

Despite all this, this horrible legislation may pass. Why?

We now have the political reality of decisive Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democrat president that wants this.

And whereas business fought Hillary care, they are now cooperating. With Democrats decisively running the show, they can buy political support with bribes and threats.

Pharmaceutical firms and insurance firms like the idea of new expanded taxpayer subsidized markets.

And doctors? The American Medical Association initially refused to endorse health care reform that included a government plan.

Now suddenly they are on board. The AMA has come out in support of the House bill with a government plan. What happened? The House agreed to get rid of planned cuts in doctor's Medicare reimbursements.

Halfway into 2009, Americans have turned more control of their lives over to government and politicians than ever before in history.

This proposed health care reform, through subsidies and expansion of Medicaid, would put tens of millions of new Americans on welfare. The result is predictable. Many more citizens with incentives to stay poor and dependent.

The rest of us will transfer a major part of our freedom to manage our own private lives over to bureaucrats.

I'm praying for a miracle that will wake up a slumbering nation.

Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

2009-07-19T23:21:00.001-07:00

Sunday, July 19, 2009 6:32 PM

By: David A. Patten

On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.

The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.

The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade.

Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs.

But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals.

Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.

"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."

Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan.

Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.

A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."

The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."

The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.

The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.

Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill.

Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.

Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."

But a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.

"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.

James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."

Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program.

The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."

The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.

John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms.

Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added.

"A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.

Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.

Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.

Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.

One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.

Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda.

"I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June.

Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.

Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.

"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."

Government-Run Health Care? You First!

2009-07-16T19:16:00.000-07:00

Posted by Bobby Eberle
July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am

The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.

What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...

As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."

What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.

According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.

On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:

Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.

So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?

The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.

FAIR: Obama Betrays Security for Illegal Amnesty

2009-07-16T18:57:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:15 PM

By: Rick Pedraza

The country’s largest immigration reform group called the Obama administration’s massive illegal alien amnesty program a low priority that should take a back seat to security concerns.

"The American people have some very clear ideas about the priorities President Obama and Congress need to address, and a massive illegal alien amnesty isn’t one of them," Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) told Personal Liberty Digest.

"The public wants our immigration system fixed, but they expect their interests, not the interests of the people who broke our laws, to be paramount."

Stern, in an op-ed piece in the Buffalo News, wrote that international terrorist organizations have not given up their quest to attack this country. He said enacting a massive amnesty for nearly 13 million illegal aliens before securing the nation’s borders will exploit our vulnerability and could destroy infrastructure.

Stern called out Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., for stating in late June that securing America’s borders would have to wait until after enactment of a massive amnesty for illegal aliens. Schumer, who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees, is predicting that sweeping immigration reform, including amnesty, will become law before the year is over.

“Unfortunately, Schumer and many in Washington seem prepared to use homeland security as a bargaining chip to leverage another massive amnesty for illegal aliens that the American public does not want and cannot afford,” Stern wrote. “In doing so, he and others are gambling with the security of the nation and the lives of innocent people.”

FAIR points out that since taking office, the Obama administration has abandoned enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during an appearance on CNN asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.
In late June, Obama told a group of bipartisan lawmakers that Congress should get a plan together by year’s end.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to address immigration reform and make amnesty a top priority during his first year in office.
Last month, Obama said that America can't continue with a broken immigration system.
Obama said the current system is not good for American workers or U.S. wages; puts Mexicans who cross the border in danger; keeps undocumented workers exploited and in the shadows; and strains border communities.
Stern said Schumer and others want to legalize millions of illegal aliens for political reasons and reasons of personal conviction.

“Why, eight years after 9/11, do we not have operational control of our borders? And why should reasserting control have to wait for anything? Congress and the president have a moral and constitutional obligation to use all resources already available to protect the security of the nation,” Stern wrote in The News.

“As chairman of the relevant subcommittee, and as an elected representative of the people who would most likely suffer in the event of another terrorist attack, Schumer has an obligation to put other considerations [such as amnesty] aside,” he added.

“As a member of the House in 1986, Schumer was instrumental in passing similar legislation that granted amnesty to illegal aliens in exchange for government commitments to control future illegal immigration. Some 3 million illegal aliens got amnesty while the American people got fooled. This time, the security and interests of law-abiding Americans must come first.”

Fetuses Found to Have Memories, Say Researchers

2009-07-16T18:51:00.000-07:00

Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:30 AM

By: Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times

They weigh less than 3 pounds, usually, and are perhaps 15 inches long. But they can remember.

The unborn have memories, according to medical researchers who used sound and vibration stimulation, combined with sonography, to reveal that the human fetus displays short-term memory from at least 30 weeks gestation - or about two months before they are born.

"In addition, results indicated that 34-week-old fetuses are able to store information and retrieve it four weeks later," said the research, which was released Wednesday.

Scientists from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Maastricht University Medical Centre and the University Medical Centre St. Radboud, both in the Netherlands, based their findings on a study of 100 healthy pregnant women and their fetuses with the help of some gentle but precise sensory stimulation.

On five occasions during the last eight weeks of their pregnancies, the women received a series of one-second buzzes on their bellies with a "fetal vibroacoustic stimulator," a hand-held diagnostic device used to gauge an unborn baby's heart rate and general well-being.

The baby's responses - primarily eye, mouth and body movements - were closely monitored over the weeks with ultrasound imaging to gauge "fetal learning" patterns. The researchers found that the babies acclimated themselves to the sounds and vibrations to the point that they no longer bothered to respond - a process known as "habituation."

"The stimulus is then accepted as 'safe' " by the babies, the study said.

The team also found that the tiny test subjects actually improved these skills as they grew older, with those who were 34- or 36-weeks old clearly showing that they had become familiar with the hum outside the womb.

"The fetus 'remembers' the stimulus and the number of stimuli needed for the fetus to habituate is then much smaller," the study said.

"It seems like every day we find out marvelous new things about the development of unborn children. We hope that this latest information helps people realize more clearly that the unborn are members of the human family with amazing capabilities and capacities like these built in from the moment of conception," said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research for the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

A call to NARAL Pro-Choice America for comment on the implications of the research were not returned.

The Dutch medical team, meanwhile, said its findings could help obstetricians track the healthy development of unborn babies during pregnancy. The research was published in Child Development, a medical journal.

Scientists have been curious about fetal responses to sound for decades.

The first real study of "habituation" occurred in 1925 when researchers discovered that fetuses moved less when exposed to a beeping car horn. Since then, door buzzers and even electric toothbrushes have been used to help researchers understand the fetal environment - and the response of the unborn to such influences.

Beeps and buzzes were not always the tools of choice.

In 2003, psychologists and obstetricians at Queen's University in Canada found a profound mother-baby link. In a study of 60 pregnant women, they found that the unborn babies preferred the voices of their own mothers - both before and after birth.

The heart rates of fetuses sped up when they heard their mother reading a poem, and slowed down when they heard a stranger's voice - evidence of "sustained attention, memory and learning by the fetus," said Barbara Kisilevsky, a professor of nursing who led the research.

The Queen's group has also investigated fetal response to the father's voice, concluding that if men try a little pre-natal vocalizing to their offspring, the newborn will later recognize the father's voice.

© 2009

Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved

Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions

2009-07-16T18:30:00.000-07:00

'Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources'
Posted: July 11, 2009
8:20 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

John Holdren
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."

Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.

"Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

The website Zombietime has posted photos of text excerpts from "Ecoscience," referencing even further strategies from Holdren and the Ehrlichs, including compulsory adoption of children born to teenage mothers, forced sterilization and other government-mandated population control measures.

A former Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Holdren was appointed as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and confirmed on March 20 to assume the position informally known as Obama's "science czar."

Holdren's track record shows a trend of alarmist viewpoints on scientific issues, including a statement made in 1973 that the U.S. population of 210 million at the time was "too many, and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In response, Holdren recommended "a continued decline in fertility to well below replacement should be encouraged, with the aim of achieving [zero population growth] before the year 2000."

The current U.S. population is approximately 304 million.

After the perceived "crisis" of population growth faded, however, Holdren began sounding the alarm over global climate change. In the 1980s Holdren warned of human-caused ecological disasters resulting in the deaths of a billion people before 2020, and as recently as 2006, Holdren warned that sea levels could rise as much as 13 feet by the year 2010.

WND reported Holdren's participation in a panel predicting a dire future caused by global warming and calling for a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions in a report to the U.N.

Holdren's activism for greater government involvement drew a negative reaction from other scientists in the form of an open letter to Congress, WND reported.

"This is the same science adviser who has given us predictions of 'almost certain' thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

"The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

"The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST."

During his confirmation, at a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Holdren was grilled about his history of predicting calamity and advocating radical measures in response.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., expressed concern at the hearing that Holdren's alarmist positions violated a statement made by President Obama when he nominated the Harvard professor:

"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources – it's about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

In response, Holdren sought to differentiate between alarmist "predictions" and simply "descriptions" of where America could wind up if it continues on its current path:

"The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time." Holdren explained. "I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces so we will make the investments and make the changes needed to reduce those dangers."

Regarding his more recent forecasts of environmental doom, Holdren affirmed, "We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that reversed."

Nonetheless, Vitter persisted in questioning Holdren's potential political ideology behind advocating government-mandated population control:

"I'm scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government," Vitter said. "Do you think that determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

"No, Senator, I do not," Holdren answered.

Holdren then explained that current policies, including those that promote health care and opportunities for women, as well as education, naturally create families more likely to have fewer children, thus solving the potential problems of population growth.

Two Scientists, Two Standards

2009-07-16T18:26:00.000-07:00

By Michelle Malkin
July 15, 2009

The New York Times recently warned its readers about a wacky scientist in the Obama administration. But the fish wrap of record let the real nut job off the hook.

Reporting last week on the president's choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Times writer Gardiner Harris noted that praise for Dr. Francis S. Collins "was not universal or entirely enthusiastic." The geneticist is causing "unease," according to the Times, because of "his very public embrace of religion." Stomachs are apparently churning over a book Collins wrote describing his conversion to Christianity.

It's called -- gasp! -- "The Language of God." Harris intoned: "Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins' evangelism."

And ... that's it. Yes, the mere profession of Collins' faith is enough to warrant red flags and ominous declamations. A quarter of all Americans identify themselves as evangelical Christians and "publicly embrace their religion." But to the Times, Collins' open affiliation with 60 million American believers in Christ is headline news.

The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.

There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. ... No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."

Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."

Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."

If a conservative blogger or Republican political candidate had published such lunatic claptrap, the Department of Homeland Security would have him on a watch list. Instead, Holdren is Overlord of Science Policy. "Ecoscience" remains on his curriculum vitae. Obama is still perceived as the champion of reason. And the national media, so concerned about the dangers posed by a born-again Christian scientist, have responded to a secular extremist's wild blueprints for forced abortions and mass sterilizations with a collective shrug. Scary.

---

Michelle Malkin is the author of the forthcoming "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009).

Smuggling abortion agenda into healthcare reform

2009-07-16T18:13:00.000-07:00

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 7/16/2009 6:00:00 AM

If passed, two healthcare reform bills could mean more abortions at taxpayers' expense.

The two primary measures -- the Kennedy bill and the House Democratic leadership bill -- contain provisions that would represent the greatest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized it in 1973, according to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee.

"These two bills contain multiple provisions that would result in federally mandated insurance coverage of abortion on demand, result in massive federal subsidies for abortion, result even in mandated creation of many new abortion clinics across the country," he explains.

Johnson adds the bills would nullify at least some state limitations on abortion. He concludes passage would result in an increase in abortions, but recalls the Obama administration promised to take steps to reduce them.

"And it's quite true that the majority of Americans do not want the government to be promoting abortion as a method of birth control -- but that is what is imbedded in these bills," Johnson notes.

According to Johnson, the pro-abortion movement hopes to smuggle the policies into law by using healthcare as a vehicle -- and there is a grave danger they will succeed, he laments, unless the public urges their elected representatives to vote against the measures.

On a party-line vote Wednesday, the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed the $600 billion Kennedy bill. Democratic lawmakers in both houses of Congress are pushing for debate and passage of the bills before the August recess.

Aren't They All 'Hate' Crimes?

2009-07-16T17:59:00.000-07:00

- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -

Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 16, 2009 at 6:57 am

As the Senate debates the final provisions of a $680 billion defense bill, Democrats are trying to poison the water by adding a hate crimes bill to the package. It's quite obvious that hate crimes legislation and a defense authorization bill have nothing in common and should not be voted on together.

In addition, where is it written that one group, one gender, one class of people are more special and worthy of more protection than another group? Only in left-wing America. Equal protection under the law? Not any more.

The federal hate crimes bill which is sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) has been attached as an amendment by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to the defense appropriations bill. As noted in The Boston Globe, "Most Republicans oppose the legislation, saying it infringes on states' rights or could lead to the criminalization of religious expressions of opposition to homosexuality."

Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, has called for a vote, requiring 60 supporters, to move forward on the hate crimes measure. That vote could come as early as today, but timing for a final vote on the amendment was uncertain.

Current hate crimes law applies to acts of violence motivated by prejudice against a person's race, color, national origin, or religion. That would expand under the legislation to include crimes targeting people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Sen. John McCain spoke out against the move on Wednesday, saying, "Those of us who oppose this legislation -- and it is important legislation -- will be faced with a dilemma of choosing between a bill which can harm, in my view, the United States of America and its judicial system and a bill defending the nation. I don't think that's fair to any member of this body."

One of the main controversies (outside of the fact that the entire premise of "hate" crimes is wrong) is that the new legislation would cover sexual orientation. Religious groups, which teach that homosexuality is wrong, are obviously concerned on what this bill would do to their ability to promote their teachings.

According to a story in the Associated Press:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other supporters also stressed that religious leaders or others who voice objections to homosexuality could not be held liable. The bill "does not criminalize speech or hateful thoughts," he said. "It seeks only to punish action, violent action, that undermines the core values of our nation."

So, what happens if some nut-job sits in a church sermon and then goes out and kills someone based on what he heard in church? Without ANY form of hate crimes legislation, that person would be tried for murder. But now, since those on the left feel that a murder charge doesn't send the right message, the criminal would be charged with a hate crime. But then the guy states that he did it because of what he learned in church.... that he was following God's will. Now what?

The bill is bad, and it has no place being attached to the defense bill. If you'd like to contact your senators, just use the link below. No one deserves special treatment or favored treatment. This is America where we should all be treated equally.

++ Click here to contact Congress. Stop Hate Crime Legislation!

Obama's 'Pay Czar' -- Welcome to the Twilight Zone

2009-06-23T07:56:00.001-07:00

Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 10, 2009 at 7:15 am

We sure have seen a lot in the nearly five months that Barack Obama has been president. Who could have imagined that the government would be controlling certain financial institutions? Who would have thought that General Motors would be under the control of Obama? Who knew that it was possible to create more debt in five months than all previous presidents combined? Welcome to the new America.

But, it doesn't stop there. We've heard so much weirdness coming from Obama like the jobs that have been "created or saved," when job losses continue and the unemployment rate keeps going up, but it doesn't stop there. Today we see yet another step down the path to government control, and another effort by Obama to take freedom away from the American people. In particular, I'm talking about Obama's new plan to appoint a "Pay Czar" to monitor what people are getting paid. We have now entered the Twilight Zone...

As noted in an Associated Press story, "the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds." FOXNews.com reports that the position will be a "pay czar" formally known as a "special master for compensation." Special master for compensation? Are they serious?

As noted in the stories, the position focuses on those financial institutions that received funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Now, perhaps there are those who believe that if a troubled business accepts government (tax payer relief) then it should come with strings attached. In some ways that makes sense. I, as an investor, would like to see a return on this investment (bailout), but I also realize that the companies are in the best position to manage things... not me or the government.

Now people are probably jumping up and down saying, "If the companies were so good at running things, they wouldn't be in this mess." Well, that's partly true. We all have to keep in mind that this "mess" was created by forcing lending institutions to loan money to people who would normally be considered "bad risks."

Ok, back to the main point... regardless of whether a financial institution received government funds, the government has no business telling the institution how to run itself. Wages, regulations, policies, etc. are established by the company or institution. They form contracts between management and employees. That is how companies are run. For Obama to now say that he wants to control what they get paid shows two things: 1) it further reveals his desire to move America toward more and more government control. 2) It shows that Obama has no understanding of business.

If Obama limits the salaries of top executives at companies A, B, and C, don't you think those executives are more likely to go work for companies D, E, and F? What does that do for companies A, B, and C which are already "troubled?" I guess we already know the answer to that one when we look at General Motors: government "ownership" of production.

But, of course, Obama is not stopping there. Just check out the news story:

The government, however, is not stopping at federally assisted institutions. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke want to give the Fed, which regulates banks, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the financial markets, greater powers to set compensation guidelines across the financial sector.

Can you believe this? Now, we are not just talking about institutions that accepted TARP funds. We are talking about an entire sector of the economy. Just look at what Obama's treasury secretary had to say:

"I think boards of directors did not do a good job," [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner said Tuesday. "I think shareholders did not do a good job in terms of discipline and compensation practices."

So, Geithner blasts boards of directors (the managers) and the shareholders (the people). If the managers and regular folks are to blame, what's left to save the day? That's right... the government. Can we please wake up from this bad dream?

Panetta Comment Telegraphs America's Present Weakness

2009-06-23T07:24:00.000-07:00

By Christopher G. Adamo
June 18, 2009

Once again, a prominent liberal Democrat is projecting his sordid political tactics and those of his party on the opposition. In an interview for next month's issue of The New Yorker magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta asserted that former Vice-President Dick Cheney might welcome another major terrorist attack on America, as a means of validating his criticism of misguided Obama Administration "security" policies.

Cheney has had the entire liberal cabal up in arms, ever since his May 21 speech to the American Enterprise Institute in which he bluntly warned of the dangers posed by Obama's naive and ideologically driven decisions relating to the terror war. Cheney flatly explained how those policies are putting America at risk. Worse yet, at least from the liberal perspective, ever since his commentary, Cheney's popularity among the American people has risen dramatically. Consequently, the Democrats view him as a bigger danger than Al Qaeda or a nuclear Iran.

One might expect that, in response to Cheney, Panetta might have simply expounded on the new and improved safeguards implemented by Obama and his cronies since inauguration day. Instead, he sought to vilify Cheney's very motive for speaking out, despite the irrelevancy of that motive as a factor in accurately assessing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Obama's "security" program. But Panetta and his puppet masters clearly revealed their highest priority as the need to undermine Cheney's personal credibility in the process.

Worse yet, such extreme defensiveness, and the scenario to which it alludes, likely reveals a prevailing nervousness within the Obama Administration to the effect that, in the event of a terror strike, Cheney's warnings might stick. This is a political liability that Obama knows he and his cabinet could not afford. And the magnitude of the response, indicating that they are already in "damage control" mode, is proof that the Obama facade is indeed in the initial stages of collapse.

Recalling events throughout the past sixteen years that led up to the current state of affairs, it is obvious that liberals view any and every situation primarily, perhaps exclusively, from the standpoint of its potential for political gain or loss. Bill Clinton, throughout the 1990s, was wholly indifferent to the burgeoning Islamist threat, only addressing them, on those occasions when he did so, from a perspective of their usefulness to distract America from his other personal problems.

Thus, "retaliatory" cruise missile strikes were ordered against empty terrorist camps on the same day Monica Lewinsky testified before Ken Starr, captured terror "suspects" were dealt with in the judicial swamplands of American courts, and no coherent plan was ever devised to neutralize the emerging danger. Even more deplorable were the actions of Clinton Administration officials such as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who did not merely ignore the problem but, at the behest of Clinton, erected barriers to any effective analysis of intelligence information that might have alerted the right people to the imminence of the attacks that did indeed result.

In a similar manner, Obama's first five months have been an unqualified disaster, not just on the security front, but in every aspect of his governing. Once an observer gets past the "hope and change" platitudes, and weighs real outcomes against the empty promises that were offered in such profusion on the campaign trail and during the transition period, it is impossible to assess Obama's tenure as anything else.

The entire "bailout" ruse of last October, for which Obama and his party eagerly took credit at the time, has completely failed to produce any of its promised results while costing current and future taxpayers dearly. The bailout sequel, fraudulently presented as an "economic stimulus," has likewise proven to be every bit as much of a pork-laden sham, and an abomination to every citizen who ever held the Constitution in high regard.

Administration ventures into the auto industry, replete with the predictable squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars, are proving to be just as dismal of a failure. Car companies that had been hit hard by high gasoline prices and the recession are now being completely strangled by meddling bureaucrats who know nothing about building automobiles, but are fanatically devoted to a leftist political agenda.

Gasoline supplies for those cars remain precarious, owing to the fact that Congressional Democrats and Obama refuse to open American territories to oil exploration and drilling. So despite the government's subsidization and takeover of the formerly private auto industry, its prospects for future prosperity are slim to none.

At the onset of a summer that, in many regions of the country, has been one of the coldest on record, the American worker and businessman is being strangled and starved as his livelihood is being subordinated to phony allegations of "global warming."

The hideous face behind the mask of socialized medicine, that "unholy grail" of the liberal agenda, is beginning to be revealed to the public. Massive costs, restricted coverage, and ultimately, rationing of services that will seriously degrade the quality of care received by Americans, ultimately degrading their health and even their lives. As a result, it is no longer resonating with the public as it did when presented in flowery campaign speeches, adorned in those banalities of "hope and change."

Despite Leon Panetta's shameless finger pointing, it must be remembered that the Democrats, his party, were the ones who sought to brazenly exploit catastrophe, whether natural or man-made, as political ammunition. From the Oklahoma City bombing to the Mississippi River floods to Hurricane Katrina, liberals can be counted upon to infuse their political message into any occasion of human suffering.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel characterizes this as good strategy and the proper exploitation of an opportunity. Despite having been appointed as the nation's intelligence chief, as a liberal Panetta's first devotion will be to the political apparatus of his party. So it should come as no surprise that Panetta would expect similar behavior from a political rival.

Many on the right are waiting for the American public to find their way past the fraud of the liberal press, and awaken to the abysmal realities of the Obama/Democrat agenda. No single event would do so more quickly than another major terrorist attack. And the Obama White House is sensitive to the dire significance of such a possibility, if only for fear of its political fallout.

What if national security has been as thoroughly compromised by this Administration as the free market? Leon Panetta, by his excessive and inflamatory words, has shown his awareness of the dangerous game that is being played with the country's security by blinded liberal ideologues. Americans should read between the lines and be very afraid.

---

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

Victor Davis Hanson: Logic is turned upside down in Age of Obama

2009-06-23T07:14:00.000-07:00

By Victor Davis Hanson
Posted: 06/18/2009 04:24:40 PM PDT
Updated: 06/18/2009 05:50:28 PM PDT

Are you confused by all that has changed since President Barack Obama took office in January? If so, you're not alone. Perhaps this handy guide to Age of Obama "logic" might be of some assistance.

1. The budget. Wanting to cut $17 billion from the budget, as President Obama has promised, is proof of financial responsibility. Borrowing $1.84 trillion this year for new programs is "stimulus." The old phrase "out-of-control spending" is inoperative.

2. Unemployment. The number of jobs theoretically saved, or created, by new government policies — not the actual percentage of Americans out of work, or the total number of jobs lost — is now the far better indicator of unemployment.

3. The private sector. Nationalizing much of the auto and financial industries, while regulating executive compensation, is an indication of our new government's repeatedly stated reluctance to interfere in the private sector.

4. Race and gender. Not what is said but who says it and about whom reveals racism and sexism. For example, a Hispanic female judge isn't being offensive if she states that Latinas are inherently better judges than white males.

5. Random violence. Some assassinations represent larger American pathologies, but others do not. When a crazed lone gunman murders someone outside the Holocaust Museum or shoots an abortion doctor, we should worry about growing right-wing and Christian extremism. But when an African-American Muslim convert brags about his murder of a military recruitment officer or an Islamic group plots to kill Jews and blow up a military jet, these are largely isolated incidents without larger relevance.

6. Terrorism. Acts of terror disappeared about six months ago. Thankfully, we live now in an age where there will be — in the new vocabulary of the Obama administration — only occasional "overseas contingency operations" in which we may be forced to hold a few "detainees." At the same time, ongoing military tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, phone intercepts and predator-drone assassinations are no longer threats to the Constitution. And just saying you're going to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay is proof that it is almost closed.

7. Iraq. The once-despised Iraq war thankfully ended around Jan. 20, 2009, and has now transformed into a noble experiment that is fanning winds of change throughout the Middle East. There will be no need for any more Hollywood cinema exposés of American wartime crimes in Iraq.

8. The West. Western values and history aren't apparently that special or unique. As President Obama told the world during his recent speech in Cairo, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were, in fact, fueled by a brilliant Islamic culture, responsible for landmark discoveries in mathematics, science and medicine. Slavery in America ended without violence. Mistreatment of women and religious intolerance in the Middle East have comparable parallels in America.

9. Media. The media are disinterested and professional observers of the present administration. When television anchormen and senior magazine editors bow to the president, proclaim him a god or feel tingling in the legs when he speaks, it is quite normal.

10. George W. Bush. Former President Bush did all sorts of bad things to the United States that only now we are learning will take at least eight years to sort out. "Bush did it" for the next decade will continue to explain the growing unemployment rate, the most recent deficit, the new round of tensions with Iran and North Korea, and growing global unrest.
Once we remember and accept the logic of the above, then almost everything about this Age of Obama begins to make perfect sense.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

White House Changes the Terms of a Campaign Pledge About Posting Bills Online

2009-06-23T07:01:00.000-07:00

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: June 22, 2009

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.

“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,” Mr. Obama said as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent and accountable.

When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.

Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two.

Various watchdog groups have slapped Mr. Obama’s wrist for repeatedly failing to live up to the pledge. Politifact.com, the fact-checking arm of The St. Petersburg Times, has branded it a “promise broken.”At the same time, many have questioned the value of the promise, saying it was too late in the process for anything to change in a bill.

“There isn’t anybody in this town who doesn’t know that commenting after a bill has been passed is meaningless,” said Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group dedicated to making government more transparent.

Now, in a tacit acknowledgment that the campaign pledge was easier to make than to fulfill, the White House is changing its terms. Instead of starting the five-day clock when Congress passes a bill, administration officials say they intend to start it earlier and post the bills sooner.

“In order to continue providing the American people more transparency in government, once it is clear that a bill will be coming to the president’s desk, the White House will post the bill online,” said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman. “This will give the American people a greater ability to review the bill, often many more than five days before the president signs it into law.”

Mr. Shapiro said the move would provide more transparency because the White House site drew so much traffic. It also stretches out the time in which a bill will be posted, making it easier for Mr. Obama to abide by the pledge.

Currently, after a bill passes Congress, the White House posts it by linking to the site of the Library of Congress. From now on, the White House plans to link to the site earlier, though Mr. Shapiro did not specify when.

The move marks a departure in the White House position on the pledge. Since January, when Mr. Obama broke the pledge with the first bill he signed, the administration has said it would implement it “in full soon.”

The Obama team has also said that it found unexpected technical hurdles in translating its campaign goals to governing. This is especially true regarding the posting of online comments. Ms. Miller of the Sunlight Foundation said that while the pledge was well intentioned, it was “meaningless” because it would not change anything and it had no mechanism for public comments or initiating a national conversation.

More useful, she said, would be for Congress to post bills earlier in the process, when language can still be changed. (Representative Brian N. Baird, Democrat of Washington, introduced a bill last week that says the House must post bills 72 hours before debate begins; a similar measure has not been introduced in the Senate.)

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning research organization, has tracked Mr. Obama’s bill-signing history. He said posting bills before final passage could be problematic because of last-minute changes.

One glaring example came in February, when it was discovered that the 1,071-page federal stimulus bill allowed millions of dollars in bonuses for American International Group executives.

If members of Congress know that final language will be “sitting out there” for five days, Mr. Harper said, they might be less likely to try to slip in questionable items. And if Mr. Obama keeps his pledge to wait five days, Mr. Harper said, he might set an example for Congress.

POLITICS
President Obama's Five-Day Promise Video

You Tube Video "Judeo Christian Nation"

2009-06-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Here is the link to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

2009-06-16T18:49:00.000-07:00

This article is from Drudge Report and is another disturbing development in the lack of checks and balances in our new government:

Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

2009-06-12T16:37:00.000-07:00

This letter was verified by Snopes and echoes my sentiments exactly:

By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews

2009-06-12T16:33:00.000-07:00

By Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.

It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.

Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.

But this was code.

In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.

And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.

Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.

This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.

While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

“On the other hand . . . ”?

Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.

Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.

At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.

If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.

The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.

Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?

In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.

Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery.

“For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.

According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.

Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?

At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?

Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.

Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”

And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.

In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.

How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?

Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.

Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.”

He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?

Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.

But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.

Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?

Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?

“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.

Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.

Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?

Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.

In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.

You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.

Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.

You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.

Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?

Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?

You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.

You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.

But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.

Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.

Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.

Obama Justice Dept. hunting for 'all actors' in Tiller murder

2009-06-06T11:19:00.000-07:00

Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 6/6/2009 7:15:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The Justice department announced late Friday afternoon that it is launching an investigation to see who else may have been involved in the murder of abortionist George Tiller.

Tiller was gunned down at his church in Witchita Kansas last Sunday. Authorities quickly tracked down and arrested a man believed to be the shooter. 51-year old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas is now facing a first degree murder charge.

Pro-life groups who have long protested the thousands of abortions that Tiller has performed over the years, including late term abortions, were quick to condemn the Tiller murder.

But in its press release on Friday, the Justice Department made it clear that it believes others may have been involved in Tiller's death.

Here is how the press release reads : "The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies."

The Justice department's announcement also states " The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients."

In the wake of the Tiller murder, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to "offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country." The directive was given in the apparent belief that other violent incidents might take place.

Some conservatives have questioned the extent of the reaction to the Tiller killing by the Justice department. They have pointed to an incident in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Monday of this week when a Muslim convert opened fire at a military recruiting center, killing one young man and wounding another. The conservatives have noted that there was no indication from the Obama administration that it feared there might be similar incidents at other military recruiting facilities or any attempt to link the Muslim man's actions to a possible larger Muslim campaign against U.S. military personnel or facilities.

And while President Barack Obama issued a statement saying he was "shocked and outraged" by the Tiller murder, he has made no public statements about the death of the young recruit in Little Rock.

The U.S. Department of Injustice

2009-06-05T17:29:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/5/2009 11:20:00 AM

The U.S. Department of Justice seal bears a Latin phrase: "Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur." The motto refers to the attorney general, "who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice." But under President Barack Obama's politically corrupt DOJ, Lady Justice is getting the shaft.

To wit: Let's examine the uproar over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to protect hate-mongering thugs who harassed and bullied precinct workers and voters on Election Day in Philadelphia.

Oh, wait. There's been no uproar. Let me tell you why.

Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On Nov. 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: "I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand." (See related article)

That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

If the pair had been dressed in white sheets, pandemonium would have broken loose. But the ebony-clad thugs were members of the New Black Panther Party who had been dispatched by Malcolm X wannabe Malik Shabazz to "guard" the polls. Translation: Protect them from scrutiny. Shield them from sunlight. Keep independent voters and observers out.

Who is Malik Shabazz? The bespectacled race hustler grabbed the spotlight in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks by defending Osama bin Laden, blaming President Bush for 9/11, bashing Israel and blasting our Founding Fathers as "snakes." His group also infamously rallied behind the Duke University lacrosse rape hoaxer. And on the day before the presidential election last fall, one of Shabazz's "field marshals," Minister Najee Muhammad, held a "black power" rally promising to send his forces to polls across the country "to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote."

The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz, Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in early January 2009. None of the defendants filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. Instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the Obama team fully dismissed the lawsuits against Malik Shabazz and Jackson. Jackson, you should know, is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher. Witness Greg Lugones told me, "Obama campaign operatives were on site throughout the entire episode."

Former Justice Department official and voting rights scholar Hans von Spakovsky added: "I have never heard of the Department dismissing a case it has already won by default. They have...sent the message that hurling racial epithets and slurs at voters and intimidating and threatening voters at the polls is fine with the Holder Justice Department -- at least if you are African-American. I seriously doubt that would have happened if the races had been reversed in this case."

Exactly. And the harassment was aimed not just at voters, but at white poll workers trying to ensure a fair and lawful process in a city infamous for machine politics and street money pollution.

Who are the racial cowards, Holder?

On the heels of this voter intimidation protection plan, the Obama Justice Department issued another decision that undermines electoral integrity -- but bolsters Democratic voter drives. The department this week denied the state of Georgia the ability to enact strict citizenship voter-verification rules previously approved by two federal courts. As Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel explained: "DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia's elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant's citizenship status or whether the individual even exists."

On top of all that, Holder recently politicized the legal review process involving the contentious issue of DC voting rights. After careful study, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion that a House bill on the matter was unconstitutional. Holder, who supports DC voting rights along with Obama, overrode his staff lawyers' ruling -- and simply ordered up an alternative opinion that fit the White House agenda.

Lady Justice is now protected by a security force armed with billy clubs and lawyers who serve the cause of protecting the re-election of Barack Obama over the rule of law.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Obama more than tolerant of homosexual lifestyle

2009-06-05T17:16:00.000-07:00

Allie Martin - OneNewsNow - 6/5/2009 5:00:00 AM

A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention says President Barack Obama's recent proclamation designating a homosexual "pride" month goes beyond mere tolerance.

Earlier this week, the White House released a proclamation recognizing June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." The proclamation was signed by President Obama and mentioned the record number of homosexuals he has nominated and chosen for positions in his administration. It also called for equal justice under the law for homosexuals and transgendered Americans. (See earlier story)

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, says the proclamation advocates more than mere tolerance.

"The United States federal government, now by executive order, signed by the President of the United States, is declaring national pride in these lifestyles," he contends. "This is not mere toleration; it's not calling for legalization, an end to criminal sanctions. It's not calling even for something like civil unions...it's calling for pride."

Scripture, Mohler points out, does not allow Christians to be proud of sin.

Obama's "New" Beginning speech

2009-06-04T22:16:00.000-07:00

OK. So here is the White House's spin on things... He hasn't got a clue, plus there's nothing "new" under the sun. Same old rhetoric with a smooth as honey delivery. Sheeple...

White House Article/Speech Video

ACLU picks on school district, eventually loses

2009-06-04T22:08:00.000-07:00

Some good news...

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 6/4/2009 5:20:00 AM

A Florida school district has reversed two decisions concerning a Christian club and private baccalaureate services.

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Santa Rosa County School District for allowing the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to meet on campus and for allowing teachers to attend private baccalaureate services. David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), explains that the school initially capitulated to the ACLU's demands.

"We've all heard of those [situations], now that it's graduation time, where private organizations -- [in this case a local] ministerial association -- rents out school facilities to hold a private religious graduation service," says Cortman. "But because of the ACLU's lawsuit, the school prohibited teachers from participating at all."

The school also prohibited the Fellowship of Christian Athletes from meeting on campus, but the ADF sent letters to the school district outlining its rights concerning both situations. According to Cortman, the district has since done the "right thing" by standing up to the ACLU's threats and reversing its decision on both issues.

"[The] ACLU tends to pick on smaller communities throughout the country and basically looks to completely eradicate any mention of religion at all in the public square," the attorney explains.

"And so we sent these letters to give some push-back to the ACLU to basically tell the school regardless of what they want you to do in their zeal to eliminate all mention of religion, what the law actually requires is that you allow the Christian clubs to meet on the same terms as other clubs."

Cortman says the ADF also argued that allowing teachers to participate in the private graduation services is no different than a teacher going to church on the weekend.

County apologies for citing pastor's home Bible studies

2009-06-04T22:03:00.000-07:00

Update:

Associated Press - 6/4/2009 7:30:00 AM

SAN DIEGO, CA - San Diego County has rescinded its citation and apologized to a pastor who was warned that he needed a permit to hold weekly Bible studies in his home.

David Jones and his wife Mary had been warned that they could be fined $100 to $1,000 if they held religious assemblies without a major use permit. (See earlier article)

Their attorney, who argued that the Jones' constitutional rights were being violated, has now released two responses he received from San Diego County officials.

A letter from the county attorney rescinds the citation and says the permit is not required.

In a second letter, Chief Administrative Officer Walter Ekard apologizes and assures the couple that steps are being taken so that similar religious gatherings won't be issued citations in the future.

Children to Learn about Penguin with Two Daddies

2009-06-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 2, 2009 at 7:22 am

Think back to when you were in elementary school. Those first years of education were (at least for me) so much fun. There was the thrill of math (don't laugh), the excitement of making new projects, and the joy of reading. These fundamentally important years were spent on... the fundamentals. They were done in a way that 6 to 11 year olds could understand, but the focus was clear: build a base of learning in math, reading, science, history, and more.

My how times have changed. Now, in addition to teaching the basics (in a watered-down way) and then letting the kids burn off energy by playing tag (oops... we can't do that anymore), the children are being exposed to the liberal ideology of gay, lesbian, and transgender issues. It appears that every lifestyle is not only accepted, but embraced... that is, unless you believe in traditional, religious definitions.

As noted in a story on CNSNews.com, "The Alameda, Calif., public schools are adopting a curriculum that will require first graders to read literature that equates same-sex unions with a family made up of a mother, father and child."

Members of the Alameda United School District (AUSD) school board voted 3 to 2 last week to implement the "Safe Schools" curriculum, which supporters say is aimed at stopping anti-homosexual bullying in schools.

The program includes between one and four lessons each year between grades 1 and 5 to introduce students to "LGBT" (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues.

There are a number of problems here, and they speak to the liberal mindset and the problems our country is facing. The overall issue of whether you believe that gay marriage is right or wrong is not even one of the issues to which I am referring. That can be left for another day.

In this case, there are two topics that come to mind: appropriateness and tolerance.

First, appropriateness. Whether we are talking about "gay" issues or "straight" issues, it is simply inappropriate to talk about them with elementary school children. They are CHILDREN! They are in school to learn how to read, write, spell, and absorb basic facts that will allow them to learn even more later. They are NOT in school to be subjects of some left-wing agenda! Math has no agenda. Spelling has no agenda. Let's stick with the basics so we actually have children who know what's going on and who can compete against other students around the world.

The elementary school classroom is simply not the place to be delving into sexuality. Let the kids be kids and focus on teaching them the basics!

Second, tolerance. Yes, I'm sure you are cringing when I mention the word "tolerance." The liberals have twisted that word so much that it has lost meaning. For liberals, "tolerance" means not only an acceptance of any lifestyle (no matter how perverted), but also a blatant hostility to those who embrace traditional and religious models for society.

The new school curriculum adopted by the Alameda school district is one where parents will be forced to have their children participate. They will not be allowed to opt out.

"This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, speaking for parents who, he said, are adamantly opposed to the plan.

This is simply outrageous. The whole idea of this curriculum is supposed to combat bullying that students face because of gay or lesbian issues. Again, we are talking about elementary school children. How do you think those kids will be treated who object to these teachings?

The story "And Tango Makes Three" (about two male penguins who hatch an egg and raise the baby penguin together) will be used as part of the teaching lesson. In other words, it will be used by teachers to promote a certain lifestyle all in the name of tolerance. Except, there is no tolerance for those children whose religious beliefs teach them something different.

It's time to stop the insanity. Elementary schools used to focus on the "3 Rs." Now, the letters of choice are LGBT.

Global Warming Skeptic May Get French Ministry Post

2009-05-31T17:55:00.000-07:00

Good for them. Finally someone with guts enough to tell it like it is:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has reportedly decided to appoint France's most outspoken global warming skeptic to head the nation's super-ministry of industry and innovation.

Dr. Claude Allegre, a former believer in manmade global warming, reversed his views in recent years and mocked climate change alarmist Al Gore's Nobel Prize as "a political gimmick."

Allegre is a former French Socialist Party leader, a member of both the French Academy of Sciences and the United States National Academy of Sciences, and the recipient of numerous scientific awards.

Twenty years ago he became one of the first scientists to warn about manmade global warming, but he now argues that the cause of climate change is "unknown."

Allegre's appointment to the high post "would send political earthquakes through Europe and the rest of the world," Climate Depot's Web site observes.

His possible appointment has drawn strong protests from environmentalists, according to the Financial Times.

Putting Allegre in charge of scientific research would be tantamount to "giving the finger" to scientists, Nicolas Hulot, France's best-known environmental activist, told the Times.

Allegre has been harsh in his attacks on global warming alarmists. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people," he told a French publication. He also criticized the "nonsense" in Gore's 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," calling it "scandalous" and "all politics."

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Capitol Hill's leading global warming skeptic, has said in a speech on the Senate floor: "I find it ironic that a free market conservative capitalist in the U.S. Senate and a French socialist scientist both apparently agree that sound science is not what is driving this debate, but greed by those who would use this issue to line their own pockets."

American capitalism gone with a whimper

2009-05-30T17:56:00.001-07:00

Interesting perspective. This article is from another blog site (see bottom of article for link)

Source: Pravda.Ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

Homeland Security Report Warns Of Rising Right-Wing Extremism

2009-05-28T17:41:00.000-07:00

View entire report

This report is so typical of the Obama Administration's attempts to demonize anyone who thinks freely...

Judicial Watch: ACORN Used in 2010 Census

2009-05-28T17:17:00.000-07:00

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:32 PM

By: Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the U.S. Census Bureau detailing the substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census. Included among the 126 pages of documents, obtained by Judicial Watch under threat of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud.

The documents also list the types of organizations ineligible for partnering with the U.S. Census. They include: "...Hate groups, Law enforcement, anti-immigrant groups, any groups that might make people fearful of participating in the Census..." The release of these Obama Commerce Department documents comes in the wake of an Obama Department of Homeland Security report released in April linking opposition to illegal immigration to "rightwing extremist radicalization."

In its official statement responding to the ACORN controversy, the Obama Commerce Department downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census, and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would be involved in any Census count. However, the Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Moreover, as an "executive level" partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns."

According to its application ACORN also signed up to: "Encourage employees and constituents to complete and mail their questionnaire; identify job candidates and/or distribute and display recruiting materials; appoint a liaison to work with the Census Bureau; provide space for Be Counted sites and/or Questionnaire Assistance Centers; sponsor community events to promote participation in the 2010 Census," among 18 requested areas of responsibility. The documents also show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. (One Census official had bet "it was under Bush.")

Among other conclusions from the documents:

The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences."
Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau choose and defined partners, or whether partners received payment.
The Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census, unless a preliminary name check provided a match. Overall, 8% of the applicants, or over 300,000 people, were considered risks for hire.
According to the U.S. Census documents, among other things, census data is used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds. Census data also "determines how many seats each state will have in the House of Representatives as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts."

"Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census on March 23, 2009. After the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch on May 15, 2009.

San Diego County officials shut down home Bible study

2009-05-28T16:56:00.000-07:00

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.
Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.
Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.

News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.
Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Broyles also said this case has broader implications.

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.
Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.
If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Follow up article:

BONITA, Calif. -- A local pastor said the County has cited him for hosting a weekly Bible study in his home. The County said visitors who drive to those meetings are affecting traffic in the neighborhood.
Pastor David Jones has been hosting weekly Bible studies at his Bonita home during the past five years. About 15 people attend the meetings, he told 10News.
Jones said a visitor to a neighbor's house called the County after a Bible study member hit the visitor’s car while leaving. Shortly after, a county code enforcement officer gave him a citation that said he needed a permit to host the weekly Bible study meetings, he said.

Jones and his attorneys sid he shouldn't have to get a permit for what he does inside his house. "We think it is clearly permissible. We think this is a violation of our constitutional rights," Jones told 10News.
A County spokeswoman says the County is concerned with parking and its impact on the neighborhood.
The two sides met Wednesday but resolved nothing.
Jones said they're scheduled to meet again on June 9.

Video clip 1

Video Clip 2

Petition to County Officials about their interference with freedom OF religion.

The jihadi virus in our jails

2009-05-22T16:34:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 5/22/2009 8:15:00 AM

President Obama's speech on homeland security was 6,072 words long. Curiously, he chose not to spare an "a," "and" or "uh" on the New York City terror bust that dominated headlines the morning of his Thursday address. Did the teleprompter run out of room?

After a yearlong investigation launched by the Bush administration, the feds cracked down on a ring of murder-minded black Muslim jailhouse converts preparing to bomb two Bronx synagogues and "eager to bring death to Jews." They also planned to attack a New York National Guard air base in Newburgh, NY, where the suspects lived and worshiped at a local mosque.

Not one word from the president on the jihadists' intended victims, motives or means.

No comfort for the reported targets in the Big Apple, still raw from the Scare Force One rattling that so vainly and recklessly simulated 9/11.

No condemnation for the accused plotters.

Why? Because doing so would force Obama to abandon his cottony "extremist ideology" euphemisms and confront the concrete truth. To borrow one of our obtuse president's favorite cliches, "let me be perfectly clear" about the reality Obama won't touch: America faces an ongoing Islamic jihad at home and abroad. Not merely "man-caused." But Koran-inspired. Yet, Obama refuses to spell out the centuries-old roots of the war that he claims he'll win faster, better and cleaner than any of his predecessors.

Moreover, his push to transfer violent Muslim warmongers into our civilian prisons -- where they have proselytized and plotted with impunity -- will only make the problem worse. A brief refresher course for the left's amnesiacs about the festering jihadi virus in our jails and overseas:

In 2005, Bush administration officials busted a terrorist plot to attack infidels at military and Jewish sites in Los Angeles on the fourth anniversary of 9/11 or the Jewish holy days. It was devised by militant Muslim converts of Jam'iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (Arabic for "Assembly of Authentic Islam") who had sworn allegiance to violent jihad at California's New Folsom State Prison.

Convicted terror conspirator Jose Padilla converted to Islam during a stint at a Broward County, FL, jail and reportedly fell in with terrorist recruiters after his release. Convicted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid converted to Islam with the help of an extremist imam in a British prison.

Aqil Collins, a self-confessed jihadist turned FBI informant, converted to Islam while doing time in a California juvenile detention center. At a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, he went on to train with one of the men accused of kidnapping and beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

In East Texas, inmates were recruited with a half-hour videotape featuring the anti-Semitic rants of California-based Imam Muhammad Abdullah, who claims that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were actually carried out by the Israeli and U.S. governments.

Federal corrections officials told congressional investigators during the Bush years "that convicted terrorists from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were put into their prisons' general population, where they radicalized inmates and told them that terrorism was part of Islam."

Despite the insistence of Obama and the Jihadi Welcome Wagon that our civilian prisons are perfectly secure, convicted terrorist aid Lynne Stewart helped jailed 1993 World Trade Center bombing/NY landmark bombing plot mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.
As I've reported previously, U.S. Bureau of Prison reports have warned for years that our civilian detention facilities are major breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists. There are still not enough legitimately trained and screened Muslim religious leaders to counsel an estimated 9,000 U.S. prison inmates who demand Islamic services. Under the Bush administration, the federal prison bureaucracy had no policy in place to screen out extremist, violence-advocating Islamic chaplains; failed to properly screen the many contractors and volunteers who help provide religious services to Islamic inmates; and shied away from religious profiling.

What's Obama's plan to prevent the jihadi virus from spreading? Washing hands and covering mouths won't work for this disease.

"We, the people..."

2009-05-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

Interesting email that was forwarded to me:

Who is "We"?

President Barack Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Do you know the Preamble for your state? . .

Alabama 1901, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..

Alaska 1956, Preamble: We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble: We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...

Colorado 1876, Preamble: We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...

Florida 1885, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble: We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble: We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..

Illinois 1870, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble: We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble: We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..

Louisiana 1921, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble: We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble: We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble: We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction

Michigan 1908, Preamble.. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble: We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...

Montana 1889, Preamble: We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

Nebraska 1875, Preamble: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble: We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..

New York 1846, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble: We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble: We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble: We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...

South Carolina , 1778, Preamble: We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble: We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble: Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

Washington 1889, Preamble: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble: Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong!

(Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.)

GOD BLESS AMERICA

'Hate crimes' a bogus argument for raising funds

2009-05-18T17:54:00.000-07:00

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/18/2009 6:30:00 AM

A surprising revelation from a homosexual activist over the purpose of the "hate crimes" bill is drawing kudos from at least one pro-family spokesman.

The activist is Andrew Sullivan, one of the movers and shakers in the international homosexual movement. "The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that," Sullivan writes on his blog, "and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time."

Sullivan continues: "The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool -- which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed."

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel read the blog entry and offers this take on Sullivan's comments on Senate Bill 909.

"He is to be commended for his candor," says Barber. "He has admitted publicly now that the hate crimes bill...is, among other things, simply a money-making scheme drummed up by the organized homosexualist lobby."

S. 909 is called the Matthew Shepard Act to honor a young homosexual man who was tortured and killed in 1998 not because of his sexual orientation, but during the course of a robbery. As Barber notes, the murder has been used as a money-raiser, too.

"Andrew Sullivan points this irony out and points out how ridiculous it is that they are using [Shepard's] name, exploiting this poor young man's horrible death to try to push a money-making scheme...a social ponzi scheme," says Barber.

"The cat's out of the bag," he continues. "Sullivan's admission...is both refreshing and stunning at the same time."

The hate crimes bill, which has already passed the House, would add sexual orientation to other protected classes.

Congress Passes Bill Protecting Bizarre Sexual Orientations

2009-05-03T15:24:00.000-07:00

Please see my blogpost: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2008
"Group" Status for Homosexuals and Prop 8

Despite the heroic efforts of Republicans, House rushes through bill that makes all ‘sexual orientations’ and ‘gender identities’ into federally-protected classes – including pedophiles

By Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

April 30, 2009 – The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted 249-175 on April 29 to pass H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a so-called “hate crimes” act.

They voted to make “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” into federally-protected minority groups even though they refused to define these terms in the legislation.

Incredibly, eighteen Republicans voted in favor of this bill, while seventeen Democrats voted against it. Here is a list of those Members:

For the final vote of all House Members, please see Final vote H.R. 1913

Republicans, Congressmen Louie Gohmert (TX), Steve King (IA), Trent Franks (AZ), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Jim Jordan (OH), Tom Rooney (FL), and others took a key leadership role in fighting against passage of H.R. 1913. During the markup of this legislation on April 22-23, they repeatedly debunked liberal and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) talking points over the need for this bill.

TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon and I attended the markup of H.R. 1913 for two days. During the markup, Steve King offered an amendment that was designed to exclude pedophilia from the undefined term “sexual orientation” in the bill. King repeatedly attempted to get lesbian activist Tammy Baldwin to define what “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” meant. She refused and was visibly shaken by having to appear to be in support of pedophilia. But, she argued against his commonsense amendment anyway. It is clear that the LGBT crowd doesn’t want sexual orientation or gender identity defined because this liberal judges the ability to define those terms any way they wish.

The Democrats voted down King’s amendment to exclude pedophiles from the term “sexual orientation.”

These courageous Representatives used research and consulting assistance provided by the Traditional Values Coalition, including our paper on the 30 sexual orientations and FBI statistics proving that there is no epidemic of hate violence against LGBT individuals. In 2007, there were only 242 cases of actual physical violence based on bias against an LGBT person. This is hardly an epidemic.

Numerous other pro-family groups also used TVC’s materials in their battle against passage of H.R. 1913. And, your actions, in generating several thousand TVC alerts to Members of Congress, helped reveal the truth about this bill.

It is clear from monitoring LGBT web sites that they are outraged and rattled by the facts that Traditional Values Coalition has been successful in entering into the record on H.R. 1913. In fact, our exposure of the bogus “findings” in H.R. 1913, pressured Democrats to remove the findings as their first action during the markup.

The “findings” are the foundation of the bill – used to justify the need for the legislation. They claimed, without any evidence, that LGBT men and women were so persecuted in their home states that they had to flee over state lines to avoid being brutalized. The “findings” also stated that these individuals were unable to find jobs or purchase goods and services because of this persecution. These “findings” were being used to justify federal intervention because “fleeing across state lines” supposedly involved “interstate commerce.”

These laughable “findings” were exposed by TVC as being so ridiculous that Democrats couldn’t support them with a straight face. By removing them, of course, they deleted the stated reasons for the bill. Democrats and their LGBT allies have never let facts get in the way of a political agenda.

President Barack Hussein Obama supports passage of H.R. 1913 and will sign this legislation as soon as it reaches his desk. In fact, on the White House web site, Obama states: “I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association. I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action.”

Obama and his wife Michelle promised the LGBT movement that they would support every objective of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender activists before the election. Mrs. Obama told a crowd of LGBT activists at the Democratic Convention that her husband was 100% behind their goals. President Obama appointed at least 11 LGBT individuals to recruit staff for the Executive Branch.

What’s Next?

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Olympia Snowe (RINO-VT) have introduced their version of the hate crimes bill in the Senate, S.909. A vote on the Senate bill is expected to take place before Memorial Day. This legislation is on a bullet train to the President’s Oval Office for his signature.

Now is the time to contact your two U.S. Senators and ask that they vote NO on any “hate crimes” bill that adds sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity as federally protected classes. Ask them to oppose any legislation that treats Americans differently under the law based on their sexual preferences and habits.

TAKE ACTION: Write or call your two Senators and urge a NO vote on so-called hate crime legislation.

Additional Resources:

YouTube - Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offers amendment on H.R. 1913
YouTube - Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz pushes hate crime bill
YouTube - Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on H.R. 1913
Pedophiles and Other Bizarre Sexual Orientations Given Protection By Congress
Michelle Obama says Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage is a “Stain on the Constitution.”
Michelle Obama speaks to homosexual delegates at the DNC to lay out her husband’s homosexual agenda if elected President
H.R. 1913 Will Inevitably Fund Anti-Christian Bigotry — And Attack Bible Speech
Misleading ‘Hate Crime’ Statistics
Protecting 30 Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” -- Ever-Expanding Definitions
Congress Must Reject Pro-Pedophile, Anti-Christian ‘Hate Crime’ Bill
Is Your Minister a ‘Hate Crime’ Peddler?

Obama Needs Clintonomics — and Soon

2009-05-03T15:19:00.000-07:00

By: Christopher Ruddy

CIA Director Leon Panetta has some urgent advice for President Obama: Read “Clintonomics” and use it!

Panetta’s advice is no secret. He is referring to a new book just out, “Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution,” (AMACOM) by Dr. Jack Godwin, a political scientist.

Here’s what Panetta said about “Clintonomics”: “This book is a must read for those struggling to figure out the present economic crisis.”

As we all know, Obama is one of those struggling.

Before Panetta assumed his CIA post, he had served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. Panetta is a pragmatic man, not an ideologue.

So his praise for this new book should come as no surprise.

But what is surprising is that, as a Republican of the Reagan type, I couldn’t agree more with Panetta’s assessment.

Author Godwin’s basic point is that, contrary to widely held opinion, Clinton did not seek to turn back the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, dubbed “Reaganomics.” Instead, he embraced them and perfected them.

Godwin’s point of view is even more interesting because he served in the Clinton administration as deputy secretary of the Department of Interior.

When Clinton came to office in 1993, the economy was in a downturn.

“Clinton attributed the country’s less than optimum economic performance to low productivity, low growth, stagnant wages, unemployment, budget deficits, and high healthcare costs, among other things,” Godwin observes.

“He outlined the essential components of his economic plan: shifting our emphasis from consumption to investment; making public policy friendlier to workers and families; reducing the federal deficit and cutting government waste; reforming the tax code; and, of course, creating jobs.”

Clinton, in short, sought to put a happy face on Reaganomics. [Godwin points out that Reagan himself disliked the characterization that it sounded like an “aerobic exercise or fad diet.”]

Reagan strongly believed that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Though Clinton did not agree with that view, he did believe that government needed to be both improved and downsized.

Both Clinton and Reagan grasped the notion that the private sector, not the public one, is the primary productive engine of the economy.

Thus Clinton offered a “New Covenant,” which Godwin writes “was indeed based on an old idea — the idea that with opportunity comes responsibility. Clinton wanted to create a leaner, not meaner government . . . In practice, this meant downsizing the federal government, cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending, and bringing down the deficit.”

I can hear the Gipper applauding Clinton’s sentiment.

Clinton is even quoted as saying that he was “the man who downsized the government more than President Reagan did.” This is true.

Democrats have long complained that Reagan gave us huge budget deficits and grew the national debt dramatically.

This also is true.

Some on the left even saw a conspiratorial overtone to the Reagan deficits. Reagan ran up huge deficits to prevent the Democrats from funding new entitlement programs, so the theory went.

Although Reagan did run up the national debt wildly, it had nothing to do with entitlements. Reagan repeatedly stated, before and after his election in 1980, that he would opt for large deficits if he needed them to bankroll his military buildup to counter the Soviet Union.

Indeed, Reagan’s plan worked. The massive military buildup not only helped defeat the Soviet empire but also left the U.S. a sizable “peace dividend” in the 90s.

Ronald Reagan set the stage for Bill Clinton. Clinton’s brilliance was in realizing the gift he had received from the Reagan years. He easily could have moved to shift the “peace dividend” from declining defense expenditures to social programs. But he didn’t.

Instead, he reduced the growth of government, ultimately leaving his successor, George W. Bush, a budget surplus.

When Clinton came into office, he tinkered with nationalizing healthcare with the so-called “Hillarycare” program. But Congress thwarted his plans.

It was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton. After the healthcare debacle, he moved to the center. He adopted a bipartisan approach and even worked with Newt Gingrich in some areas, including welfare reform and cutting the capital gains tax.

“Bill Clinton launched his campaign to end welfare as we know it because he . . . believed millions of people were trapped in the system,” Godwin notes.

“When Clinton signed welfare reform legislation in 1996, he passed the greatest test of federalism, according to the standard set by Ronald Reagan himself.”

Clinton argued that entitlement programs do not work if the government does not require something in return from the recipient. He often referred to “the politics of entitlement” as a way of criticizing his own party.

“Some, but not all, in the national Democratic Party have placed too much faith in the whole politics of entitlement, the idea that big bureaucracies and government spending, demanding nothing in return, can produce the results we want,” he said in a speech.

“We know that is simply not true. There is a limit to how much government can do in the absence of an appropriate response by the American people at the grass-roots level.”

Clinton’s approach is starkly different from President Obama’s. With strong majorities in the House and the Senate, Obama has brushed aside a bipartisanship approach. And unlike Clinton, he clearly favors the public sector over the private sector in restoring economic growth.

As Godwin says, Clinton’s governing philosophy was the logical corollary to the Reagan Revolution, stressing fiscal discipline and the end of big government.

“In public, Clinton positioned his governing philosophy as the antidote to Reaganomics,” Godwin writes. “In fact, Clinton and Reagan are fellow travelers separated more by party affiliation than political ideology.”

Barack Obama does have something to learn from Bill Clinton and “Clintonomics.”

Many Republicans have been reevaluating the Clinton years and realizing, as I have, that the country prospered under a more centrist approach. Obama should take the advice of his CIA director.

Editor’s Note: “Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution,” is available at Amazon.com.

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

2009-04-28T19:29:00.000-07:00

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:45 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.

The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.

Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.

“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.

See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now

“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.

“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.

“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.

“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.

“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.

“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.

“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.

“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”

Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.

“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.

“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.

“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.

“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.

“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.

“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.

“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”

Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.

“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.

“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”

Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.

“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”

Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?

2009-04-22T19:35:00.000-07:00

Posted by Bobby Eberle
April 22, 2009 at 8:00 am

In case you hadn't heard, America is no longer fighting a "war on terror." That's right... Obama and company have decided to drop the phrase along with the term "terrorist." Apparently, it's fine to use the word "pirate," but we can no longer send the "wrong" message by referring to terrorists as "terrorists."

Do Obama and his left-wing cohorts remember what happened on September 11, 2001? I certainly do. Given the fact that Obama felt it necessary to release previously classified memos regarding American interrogation techniques, it seems to me that he is more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the lives of the American people. Yes, that sounds like a harsh statement, but read on, and let's put the facts together. It all comes down to this fundamental question that any American could ponder, "How far would you go to save an American life?"

First a bit of a timeline to bring everyone up to speed. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the CIA and Bush administration performed a review of interrogation techniques: what was allowed, what was not allowed, etc. Over the course of this review it was determined that additional "enhanced interrogation techniques" could be used on terror suspects under very specific conditions. These enhanced techniques included the use of water boarding (simulated drowning).

CNSNews.com has provided a concise review of one of the interrogation memos dated May 30, 2005. The full memo is available at GOPUSA.

Following the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the CIA was following leads regarding another proposed terror attack on the West coast of the United States. This attack, known as the "Second Wave," planned to "use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles." KSM and two other top al Qaeda leaders were questioned regarding the Second Wave. KSM's response was, "Soon, you will know."

Here comes the big question... What would you do now? There is intelligence that a terror attack is being planned for Los Angeles. How many hundreds or thousands of Americans could die in this attack? Sitting in front of you are three top-level terrorists whom you believe have vital information on the plans. Traditional interrogation techniques have not worked. What would you do?

The CIA went to the next step and waterboarded KSM and the two others. These were the only three terrorists ever subjected to waterboarding. The memo describes that waterboarding may be used under very strict limitations:

"It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has 'credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent'; 'substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack'; and '[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information [or] CIA has clear indications that other ... methods are unlikely to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.'"

The memo notes that "the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles."

There are many moral questions that arise if you really study what went on and what the results were. I remember writing a column back in 2005 about Abu Ghraib and the feedback I received. In that incident, some prisoners were paraded around and humiliated. I received a number of e-mails suggesting that as Christians, we should never resort to "torture." Does that depend on what you define as torture?

In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy.

Hudson: As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.

Hudson further explained to me that "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed."

So, did the U.S. follow "just war" thinking? Did the U.S. do what it needed to do from a moral perspective? The New York Times apparently does not think so. In a story appearing today, the NY Times describes the enhanced interrogation techniques as "brutal methods" and procedures of "gruesome origins." Barack Obama appears to side with the New York Times, as he is now leaving the door open to prosecuting some Bush administration officials for "torture" violations.

Back to the primary question to Obama and anyone who cares to ponder it. How far would you go to save an American life? Apparently, had Obama been president a few years ago, and given that the CIA had information about a proposed attack on Los Angeles, he would not have given the order to use waterboarding to get the information. Would you? Considering that the plot was thwarted, and hundreds or thousands of lives were saved, was waterboarding three terrorists worth the price? Obama says no. What do you say?

Bill to Clamp Down On Federal Reserve Gains Steam

2009-04-14T17:29:00.000-07:00

By Bob Livingston • Apr 13th, 2009 •

Rep. Ron Paul is pushing a bill (H.R.1207) that calls for the comptroller general of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve. And the bill is gaining steam as more members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, sign on.

The bill is called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, and it requires an audit of the Fed’s Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks be completed and reported to Congress by the end of 2010.

The Federal Reserve is a government-established private entity that can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments. However, no agency has oversight over the Fed and the Government Accounting Office is prohibited from auditing or viewing any agreements. So no one, except for the Fed’s Board of Governors, truly knows what’s going on there.

According to reports, Paul says every problem with the American economy from the Great Depression to the current crisis results from Federal Reserve policy. It’s true. The Fed’s manipulation of money has led to inflation and a devaluation of the dollar that’s robbed the American people of their wealth.

No less an expert than former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan agrees. In a 1966 essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom, Greenspan wrote:

“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.”

The Constitution gives Congress the right “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5.

The Fed is a non-constitutional institution created in 1913. It was given a monopoly on the issue of all bank notes, and national and state banks could only issue deposits redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes or gold (gold ownership was outlawed 20 years later then reinstated in 1975). All national banks were forced to become members of the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. Government is out of control in many respects, and the Federal Reserve is one of them. Congress’ policies of increasing spending to prop up failing businesses, fund entitlements and expand government and pay for it by having the Fed print fiat money (money no longer backed by gold) are responsible for the loss of trillions of dollars of wealth around the globe.

This bill by Paul—now co-sponsored by 28 legislators—is a step toward fiscal responsibility. Perhaps, if it passes, the bill will show the masses the great fraud that has been perpetrated on them for the last 96 years.

Once that is done maybe, just maybe, a loud hue and cry from the masses will ensue, our country will go back to a gold standard, and some of the madness will end.

U.S. Expecting Clash With Netanyahu

2009-04-13T09:09:00.001-07:00

The Obama administration is preparing for a possible confrontation with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his reluctance to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

U.S. officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen in recent weeks about the possibility of deep differences between the U.S. and Israel over the peace process.

The briefings are intended to “foil the possibility” that Netanyahu may attempt to bypass the White House by rallying support in Congress, the Israeli paper Haaretz reported.

Administration officials have made it clear to congressmen that while President Obama is committed to the security of Israel, he considers the two-state solution central to his Middle East policy.

In his speech before the Turkish parliament last week, Obama declared, “Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”

After the speech, a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem said, “You’d have to be blind not to be able to see the writing on the wall,” ynetnews.com reported.

Obama intends to ask Netanyahu to fulfill the commitments made by previous Israeli governments, including the acceptance of a Palestinian state, the freezing of settlement activity, evacuating illegal settlements and providing economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

However, new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman insists Israel is not bound by previous agreements. He said on Wednesday: "Those who think that through concessions they will gain respect and peace are wrong. It's the other way around — it will lead to more wars."

American officials say they will listen to Netanyahu’s position when he meets with Obama in Washington next month, according to Haaretz.

But the U.S. and Israel could also be headed for a clash over Iran and its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday issued a warning to the Israeli government, saying it would be "ill-advised" to carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites

Obama Appoints Pope-Basher to Religious Panel

2009-04-13T09:06:00.001-07:00

President Barack Obama has appointed a gay-rights activist and a critic of Pope Benedict XVI to the federal government’s faith-based initiative board.

Harry Knox has been appointed to Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Knox is director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual activist organization.

He has referred to the Pope as a “discredited leader” and attacked the Catholic Knights of Columbus because of the group’s support of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that passed last November and defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression,” Knox told the San Francisco-based Bay Area Reporter on March 19.

The newspaper reported, “Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict, ‘a Pope who literally today said condoms don’t help in the control of AIDS.’”

During his trip to Africa, Pope Benedict said that distributing condoms was not the answer to the problem of AIDS, and asserted that the best strategy was the church's efforts to promote sexual responsibility through abstinence and monogamy.

On April 6, Knox told the Cybercast News Service’s Web site CNSNews: “The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use. We are eager to help him do that.

"Until he is willing to do that and able, he’s doing a great deal more harm than good — not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people’s lives.”

Knox posted a statement on the HRC Web site on Monday saying that as a member of the 25-member Advisory Council, he “will support the president in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people.”

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told CNSNews that the appointment of Knox “is exactly the kind of bastardization of common sense that the Obama people are putting forth. Quite frankly, I would prefer to see the entire faith-based initiative closed down . . .

“I’d rather people simply be honest and say we don’t believe in faith-based initiatives as they were initially intended by the previous administration, and what we’re going to do is thoroughly politicize them with these gay activists.”

President George W. Bush’s faith-based efforts focused on religious non-profit organizations, while Obama “has changed the focus to target community groups, religious and secular,” CNSNews reported.

Other members of Obama’s Advisory Board include the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., whose son replaced the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as pastor of Obama’s former church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; the Rev. Jim Wallis, who has been called the “leader of the religious left” by The New York Times; and Rabbi David Saperstein, who denounced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 for upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions.

Socialism vs. Capitalism... And the Winner is...

2009-04-10T14:18:00.000-07:00

Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 10, 2009 at 6:07 am

America is a great nation, not by luck or chance or geography, but because of the American spirit... the belief that we can accomplish anything if we work hard. Those who fought to create this new country believed in limited government with unlimited potential for its citizens. Capitalism was the key. By letting free markets work and keeping government out of the way, Americans have the opportunity to grow as much as their drive, determination, and intellect will take them. That is the American way.

As we all know, the American way is under attack. It is under attack not from organizations like Al Qaeda or the Taliban and not from countries like Russia or China. It is under attack from within... from those elements that seek to bring America down through socialist policies. With the combination of liberal bombardment at most of America's universities, a left-wing media, and a federal government led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, we face a challenge like never before. It is socialism vs. capitalism, and socialism is gaining ground...

In a stunning new poll released by Scott Rasmussen, the pollster asked a simple question, "Which is a better system -- capitalism or socialism?" In response, only 53% of American adults said capitalism. Yes, that's a majority, but this is America, right? The number should be much higher.

Twenty percent of the respondents said socialism is better, while 27% were not sure. Not sure? Do these people have no grasp of the countries that have turned to socialism? Check out a classic video by economist Milton Freidman: Milton Freidman

What is really scary is to look at poll results below the surface. As Rasmussen tells us in his report, adults under 30 are "essentially divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided." This is truly frightening. For those under 30, it's basically a toss up? Capitalism, socialism... socialism, capitalism... who cares? That is the attitude, and it's one that will drive this country to ruin.

When looking at the poll results from a partisan perspective the differences are clear. As Rasmussen notes, "Republicans -- by an 11-to-1 margin -- favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism."

It seems clear to me that many people simply don't understand what they are asking for. In their zeal to turn away from Republicans for their broken promises of less spending and smaller government, they turned to a group of leaders bent on destroying the foundations of America. Now, we have a president who wants to spend, tax, institute social programs, and tell the world that America is not so special. And we have a Congress that is more than willing to help.

In a well-written piece published in 1999 by the Heritage Foundation, author Balint Vazsonyi does a terrific job explaining the American way and the path to socialism. Vazsonyi describes the "Constitutional compass" which has the following four points: Rule of Law, Individual Rights, Guarantee of Property, and Common Identity.

Here is how it works. Every time somebody proposes a new law, a new statute, or an executive order, you ask whether it passes muster when held against the standard of the Four Points. The answers are easy, because either they do or they don't. If they don't, then they have no place in the United States of America. Without that compass, what would make us American?

Vazsonyi goes on to describe "the other compass," one that is being seen more and more in American society. It is one in which the four points of the Constitutional compass give way to four others: "the pursuit of social justice; instead of individual rights, it promotes group rights; instead of the guarantee of property, it advocates redistribution through entitlements; and in place of our common American identity, it favors what it calls multiculturalism."

The new compass, comprised of social justice, group rights, redistribution, and multiculturalism has a name, and that name is socialism.

Socialism, I believe, is the appropriate, scholarly, utterly unemotional designation of a grand philosophical idea in Western civilization. Ever since Descartes started thinking about thinking, and other French philosophers followed in the 18th century, and then Germans picked it up where the French had left off, socialism has been in the making. For a long time, then, socialism has been with us as "the other grand idea" of Western civilization, and it will remain with us as long as there is an "us."

It deserves to be taken seriously, and it needs to be engaged on philosophical grounds. In every sense of the word, it holds the opposite view of everything this country was built on.

Investors Business Daily also recently put out a poll showing the numbers of Americans who embrace a socialistic agenda. With the government and the media bombarding Americans on the virtue of income redistribution, government-run health care, and on and on, it's now wonder this mindset is starting to sink in.

We have to do a better job of letting America know what the "American way" really is and reveal the true agenda of Obama and his cohorts. As Vazsonyi notes in his report, "Millions of ordinary Americans appear to have accepted, and to be promoting, the socialist agenda. There is every reason to believe that many minds would be changed if they were brought face-to-face with socialism as the doctrine they are following and advocating."

I can't help but be sad and frustrated that the Republicans helped contribute to the state we are in now. People are turning to socialism simply because they wanted "change." Yet, they have no idea what that change really means. The Republicans were in control and had the opportunity to really set forward a conservative agenda that is based on the principle of capitalism. Yet the lure of big government and power stalled the movement. Policies that gave us even more spending and more government were the result.

We are at a crossroads, and we must fight to get America back on track. The American way is not an easy way. No one ever said it was. It's not about what the government can give you. The government can't give a person ANYTHING that it does not first take away from someone else. The American way is about respecting the rights of the individual and promoting an economic and political system that has opportunity for all. Obama may be ashamed of that America, but it's the America I believe in. Don't you?

Rick Warren disavows support for Prop. 8

2009-04-08T13:14:00.000-07:00

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 4/8/2009 7:00:00 AM

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed. "The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, 'Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?' And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman."

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.

Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8

"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.

Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.

A deafening, partisan silence

2009-03-31T17:50:00.001-07:00

Tim Wildmon - Guest Columnist - 3/31/2009 7:50:00 AM

Do you remember a few short years back when Trent Lott was forced to resign his position as Senate majority leader? Lott joked at a private birthday party for aging colleague Strom Thurmond, saying that the country would have been better off had Thurmond been elected president when he was a younger man. But because Thurmond was a segregationist in his earlier years, as were so many politicians who later saw the error of their ways, the liberal media took from that joke that Lott was saying America would have been better off without civil rights for black Americans. Within a day, civil rights groups and the Democrats were calling for Lott to resign. Just a short time later, Lott's own party joined the chorus and so he did, in fact, step down as the leader of the Senate.

What Lott said, with a long reach, could have been construed as insensitive by opportunists, I suppose. But, honestly, what he was doing was simply paying an old man a kind word at his birthday party. He meant no harm towards anyone. But Lott was demonized by the press and treated as if he was a pariah after that.

Contrast that with what President Barack Obama said on national television a couple of weeks back. He was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno when the subject of the bowling alley at the White House came up. Talking about his lack of bowling skills, Obama made this remark about his game: "It was like Special Olympics or something." And the studio audience laughed heartily.

And the liberal media and Democratic Party leaders had this reaction: Insert sound of crickets here.

Here you had the president of the United States comparing himself in a comical way to developmentally disabled children -- in short, making fun of their awkward physical movements which they can't help -- and no one in the liberal media or the Democratic Party wants their pound of flesh? Why the silence?

It should be noted that the president did call the head of the Special Olympics from Air Force One on the way back to Washington and apologized for his insensitive remarks.

Did Obama intend anything malicious towards Special Olympics participants? No, he did not. It was just an off-the-cuff remark that he should not have made -- especially on national television and especially when he is president.

So Obama gets a pass for his insensitive gaffe where millions of people are watching, a one-day news story -- yet Lott gets hounded for weeks and all but gets run out of town for an innocent remark he made at a man's private birthday party?

So blatant is the mainstream media's affection for Barack Obama that some have called this era the end of traditional journalism. Emmy Award-winning journalist Bernard Goldberg, whom I had the opportunity to interview on radio recently, has a best-selling book out titled A Slobbering Love Affair: The True and (Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, which documents this in great detail. Goldberg is not a political conservative, but found offensive and unprofessional the manner in which his colleagues have been in bed with liberal politicians, especially Obama. Traditional journalism teaches that the news media should play the role of "watchdog" of politicians and the government, regardless of which political party happens to be in power.

Can you imagine what would have happened to President Bush had he gone on 60 Minutes and laughed out loud when asked about the terrible condition of our economy as Obama did? The interviewer even asked Obama if he was "punch drunk." If that had been a Republican president, the New York Times headline would have read: "Devil Bush Laughs in Face of Suffering Americans."

How about the fact that Obama bashed Bush unmercifully about the war in Iraq and promised emphatically to bring the troops home in 16 months? Then when he gets elected, he changes to 18 months and says he will leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops, a third of what we have now, is not ending the war. He is doing nothing more that what President Bush would have done -- specifically, listening to his commanders on the ground. Do we hear a hue and cry from the liberal media about this? No, we hear more crickets.

The one positive in America today is that we have alternative news sources like OneNewsNow.com in what was once an industry controlled by just a few big agencies. Because the national mainstream news media will not be scrutinizing the Obama administration in the same way they would any other president because they are his political and ideological soul mates. And that is not good for our democratic process or for traditional journalism in America.

Lights go out on Saturday in carbon-conscious cities

2009-03-28T09:10:00.000-07:00

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/27/2009 6:00:00 AM

Mississippi is joining the ranks of states whose cities are observing Earth Hour.

Select businesses and government buildings in Tupelo will be dimming their lights in observation of Earth Hour this coming Saturday at 8:30 p.m. local time. Tupelo will be joining cities around the world that have pledged to participate in this event designed to curb carbon emissions and bring awareness to so-called "manmade global warming."

Travis Hunsicker is the sustainability director for Tupelo and the main organizer of the local event. OneNewsNow asked Hunsicker what his stance was on the issue of climate change.

"Um, really, I steer clear of the subject in general, to be honest with you. It's a very sensitive issue -- and scientists, whether it's the [IPCC] or here locally, I haven't read a concise report that declares that climate change is as serious as the media makes it out to be," he admits. "Now it may have adverse effects 10-to-15 years down the road. But like I said, that's not my expertise."

Seeking out a city leader who might have an understanding of the issue, OneNewsNow asked Tupelo Mayor Ed Neely -- who fully supports the upcoming local observance -- about his stance on climate change. "Uh, I think anything that affects our environment is a big issue," Neely says. "I'm not smart enough to know the answers about global warming."

To get some answers, OneNewsNow turned to the country that started Earth Hour -- Australia. Viv Forbes, chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, says the notion that carbon dioxide is dangerous and needs to be curbed is ridiculous.

"All of [the manmade global warming theory] is based on computer modeling. It's not based on science; it's not based on observed past records; it's not based on observed relationships. It's based on computer models," he contends. "And the models are based on assumptions -- and guess who puts the assumptions in?"

For those who are skeptical about manmade global warming, an alternative celebration is being held during Earth Hour. That event, called Human Achievement Hour, is designed to celebrate the technological achievements of mankind that have improved the quality of life for humans. Participants of Human Achievement Hour will celebrate by reading by electric lights, using their cars to go out to eat and watch movies, and enjoying an evening with their families while keeping the lights on.

Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which initiated Human Achievement Hour.

"And now the way I looked at Earth Hour, when you boil it down, is that it is not so much pro-earth as it is anti-man, anti-industrialism, [and] anti-human achievement," she notes. "So we wanted to point out the hypocrisy of this one-hour event by having our own event in which we appreciate the things that are the products of human innovation like lights, television, radio, cars -- all these things that we consider to make life easier to live."

However, Viv Forbes believes Earth Hour is a necessary event.

"Earth Hour, it's got another benefit. It's going to let people know what the future may hold because if we persist in trying to generate our electricity from windmills and solar panels, we are going to go into a world of brown-outs and black-outs," he says. "And every night at 8:30, when everybody turns on their coffee machine to make a coffee, the lights will go out. Because they might not have noticed, but there is no power from the sun at 8:30 at night. It's usually quiet and there is no power from the wind either. So Earth Hour is a good dose of what the future may hold."

On April 15, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community

2009-03-19T22:41:00.000-07:00

What a terrifically clever idea...

On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls. The TEA party rally will begin at 12 noon.

Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:

vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?
want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
want government controlled health care?
want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.

Bring your cell phone and call Congress and the president while attending the TEA party rally (Representative and Senators, 202-224-3121; President, 202-456-1414). Tell Every American about this effort by forwarding this invitation to your friends. Together we can make a difference.

Bucking the media trend on global warming 'crisis'

2009-03-09T18:54:00.000-07:00

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/9/2009 8:15:00 AM

NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.

The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.

One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.

"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."

Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."

And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.

"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."

Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.

"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."

The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."

Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.

Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.

"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.

Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.

"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."

Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.

"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.

Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.

Obama Shoots for Mars

2009-02-28T16:18:00.000-08:00

Larry Elder - Syndicated Columnist - 2/26/2009 9:45:00 AM

President Barack Obama, on Tuesday night, gave his first presidential address before Congress. He looked good, sounded great, and delivered his address with poise and confidence. He entered the Capitol and made his way through the applauding throng like a modern-day Moses slowly parting the Red Sea.

The moment was certainly historic, and all Americans -- or at least nearly all Americans -- took pride in living in a country that went from a Constitution that defined a black as three-fifths of a person to one where a black person could be elected President of the United States. Some journey!

But when the applause died down, the President took out a scattergun and attempted to hit everything in sight. He confidently asserted his and our intention to overcome the current economic downturn and march toward an even brighter future.

How? Government/taxpayers will spend our way to the summit.

He/Congress/we will "invest" in healthcare and education; "save or create" 3.5 million jobs; "cure cancer within our lifetime"; provide assistance to the states; "save our planet from the ravages of climate change"; save banks and other financial institutions while holding "accountable those responsible" for their problems; increase the size of the military; end torture (presumably he meant of our enemies); and cut the size of the deficit.

What?! Nothing about crafting a college football playoff?

After the President's speech, the political commentators fell over themselves in complimenting the President. Many said things like "he aimed high," "he set out an ambitious agenda," and "he outlined a vigorous list of expected accomplishments."

Economist Thomas Sowell uses a three-pronged test to examine government's "new ideas." 1) How much will it cost? 2) Who pays? 3) Will it work? Few of the post-speech analysts seemed to care.

One waited in vain for the political experts to point out that the President's spending spree must come from somewhere -- taxes or borrowing or printing.

And, as an aside, how would the press have reacted had former President George W. Bush claimed -- as did Obama -- that America "invented the automobile"?

Suppose Bush steered a shopping cart down the aisle, packed it with everything in sight that he could grab, pushed it to the cashier, and then said, "You mean I gotta pay?"

The President, on Tuesday night, promised to both lower taxes and raise taxes. He promised to both reduce spending and increase it. He promised to expand education while simultaneously claiming that education begins in the home. He promised to bail out homeowners -- "responsible" ones -- while insisting that Americans take responsibility for living beyond our means and making bad choices.

He promised to provide financial assistance to states while never mentioning the states' fiscal irresponsibility. He said, "There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make," yet said nothing about whether that state budgeted or spent responsibly.

He unilaterally abolished the notion that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Under his administration, the free lunch not only exists, but government bureaucrats provide takeout or delivery.

The President, last night, mentioned no total price tag for all this largesse. He did say, however, that he intends to raise taxes on the two percent of Americans making more than $250,000. Somehow he expects to burden "the rich" still more and not affect their behavior. Already, the top one percent pays nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes.

The President, as he said during the campaign, promised to lower taxes on 95 percent of Americans. Of course, nearly 30 percent of working Americans pay zero in federal income taxes. But they, too, will get checks. And, Obama said to applause, the "checks are on the way."

The President sketched out a federal government grab larger than any in the history of our nation. His administration intends to bail out and oversee everything from banks to car manufacturers to lemonade stands.

Be not afraid about waste, mismanagement or politically directed spending. To ensure that our money is spent properly, the Obama administration intends to post the allocations on the Internet, ensuring wise and appropriate fund distribution.

Do those who voted against the President "want him to fail"? No, those who opposed the President want America to succeed. The formula for that success has a long and impressive track record: lower taxes, rein in government spending, and promote free trade. Let's put it another way: Remove government's boot from the neck of the American worker, businessperson and entrepreneur.

Set them free. Watch what happens.

CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2009 LAURENCE A. ELDER

President Obama's $1 Trillion Tax Hike Plan

2009-02-26T15:45:00.000-08:00

Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:59 PM

By: Chris Gonsalves

Looking to fund an ambitious healthcare program and put more money in the hands of the poor and the non-working, President Barack Obama wants wealthier Americans and businesses to pay nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade.

In his proposed 2010 budget, released today, Obama suggests bringing back the top two Clinton-era tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent for the nation’s highest earners. Those taxpayers currently pay 33 percent and 35 percent. More than 2.6 million Americans would be forced to pay the higher rates, according to Bloomberg News.

Tax rates on capital gains and dividends will rise to 20 percent for top earners, up from the 15 percent rate set by former President George W. Bush in 2003.

“It’s a clear repudiation of Bush’s policy,” Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland in College Park, tells Bloomberg. “It’s more Obama Robin Hood.”

As if the rate changes weren’t enough, Obama also proposes punishing the rich by stopping the scheduled repeal of the controversial estate tax next year. The president suggests imposing a 45 percent tax rate on any family’s estate worth more than $7 million.

The Obama tax hikes also include new restrictions on itemized deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 per year. Deductions for things like charitable donations, mortgage interest and investment expenses will be capped at 28 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers, some 30 percent less than they currently get.

By 2020, taxpayers in the wealthiest households will pay $636.7 billion in additional taxes according to estimates in the budget proposal.

The changes would be phased in gradually over the next few years, according to an analysis of the budget by the Wall Street Journal. For the 2009 tax year, the 33 percent tax bracket starts with couples with adjusted earnings of $208,850. A taxpayer in the top bracket paying $1,000 of mortgage interest, for example, would see a tax break worth $350 reduced to $280.

According to estimates from Deloitte Tax, a married couple with 2 children under age 17 and income of $500,000 a year would owe approximately $11,300 more than under current law if all of the tax provisions in Obama's budget request outline were enacted, CNN reported.

The remainder of the $1 trillion tax hike would come from $353.5 billion in additional levies on businesses, especially U.S.-based multinational corporations. Obama’s proposal calls for significantly rewriting the rules on the taxability of profits earned overseas, increased enforcement of international tax collections and changes in accounting that would serve as a “windfall profits tax” aimed largely at the oil companies.

"This budget plan is once again a missed opportunity for American taxpayers — it raises taxes on all Americans, implements massive new spending and fails to make any tough choices to control the deficit," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Budget Committee Republican, told the Associated Press. Gregg was nominated by Obama to join his Cabinet as commerce secretary but later withdrew.

Great Pro-Life Speech by Young Girl in Canada

2009-02-21T08:39:00.001-08:00

This is an awesome speech and I would recommend watching it on the link provided below. What a well researched and thought out speech for a child, or even most adults...

Preteen pro-life speech goes viral

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 2/20/2009 6:15:00 AM

The mother of a 12-year-old girl whose pro-life speech has become a hit YouTube video says her daughter's passion for the unborn is genuine.

Lia is a preteen from Canada who decided to speak out against abortion in her school's speech contest, despite teachers and school officials who encouraged her to pick a different topic.

"What if I told you that right now someone was choosing if you were going to live or die? What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you had done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you [that] you could nothing about it? Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation," she says in her speech.

Kimberly, Lia's mother, says Lia was told by school officials that if she chose the topic of abortion, she would not be allowed to participate in the speech contest. But both were surprised when Lia's pro-choice teacher had a change of heart.

"Her teacher was really impressed by this speech and perhaps moved by it, and therefore her teacher kind of was a real supporter of [Lia] winning for the class," Kimberly notes. "And she had to go through a couple of hoops and get clearance from a couple of other teachers before she could be declared winner of the class."

Another controversy erupted when the panel of judges had a supposed big disagreement and one stepped down. Initially Lia was disqualified, but later the panel declared her the winner. She was asked to take out this portion of her speech: "[F]etuses are definitely humans knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."

Kimberly says after Lia was told to remove that portion of her speech, she took time to think about her decision and ultimately decided to leave it in. Lia also competed in a regional speech competition but did not win. However, her speech has been viewed by over 200,000 people on YouTube.

Letter from Barbara Boxer in response to my letter against Obama's "stimulus" bill

2009-02-20T18:02:00.000-08:00

Dear Mrs. Dorcich:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your views on this critical bill, which has passed Congress and was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009.

There is a very simple, urgent reason for this legislation: We need to save jobs and we need to create jobs. We need to act quickly and boldly because at the rate we are shedding jobs, we are heading into deeper economic turmoil.

This is a time when the nation must come together. In my view, the Senate had three choices:

One was to do nothing. Doing that, to me, would be a hostile act because it continues the dangerous status quo. Our second choice was to wait for the perfect bill, and of course each Senator would write his or her perfect bill and we'd stall. Or our third choice was to pass the compromise; that is the choice Congress made, and I believe it was the only common-sense choice before us.

I also want to point out that without Republican votes in the Senate, a Republican leadership filibuster would have succeeded. The Republicans who voted for the bill did so out of a deep concern that doing nothing is unacceptable.

H.R.1 will inject $787 billion into our economy through tax cuts and spending on projects to save and create jobs. It will make significant investments in vital infrastructure projects, give much-needed aid to our states, and help to create and save millions of American jobs.

This legislation is far from perfect. But we are in a deepening economic crisis, and I believe it was necessary for Congress to move swiftly to stop it from sliding further. California's unemployment rate is an unacceptable 9.3 percent, and nearly 600,000 jobs were lost nationwide in January alone. Now is the time to invest in our country and our people.

We know that this package alone will not solve the entire problem; we must also address the housing and financial crises, and we will do so.

Again, thank you for writing to me on this important issue. Be assured that I will keep doing all I can to help get America's economy back on track. I will continue working with the Obama Administration and my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact legislation to stimulate growth, create jobs, and make American businesses more competitive in the global economy.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Please visit my website at http://boxer.senate.gov

Sooo... what exactly is the "compromise" she is referring to? This was a totally partisan plan and NO Republicans in the House voted on it and only three Republican sell-outs voted for it in the Senate. ACORN is getting a lot of this money... what a surprise. Notice she doesn't mention that this bill is in response to a problem set off during the Democratic leadership of Carter and Clinton. Equal housing opportunity for all, right? Last time I checked, home ownership isn't a civil right. Of course they are doling out civil rights to people based on behavior now too, so what do I know.

The rush to wait

2009-02-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 2/18/2009 7:20:00 AM

The big story last week was the incredible Congressional rush to pass a bill that was more than a thousand pages long in just two days -- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days while the Obamas were away on a holiday.

There is the same complete inconsistency in the bill itself. Despite the urgency in President Obama's rhetoric, as well as in Congress' haste in passing a bill which few -- if any -- members had time to read, much less consider, most of the actual spending will take place next year, at the earliest.

Not even the most Alice-in-Wonderland actions will arouse the suspicions of those who have what William James once called "the will to believe."

Nowhere was that will to believe greater than in the election of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, not on the basis of any actual accomplishment, but as the repository of hopes and symbolism. His supporters among the voters and in the media are not going to stop believing now.

It will take a lot more than blatant inconsistency for the faithful to lose faith. It may take catastrophe -- and there may well be catastrophe.

For some, even catastrophe under Obama can be blamed on George Bush. After all, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented third term in 1940, after two terms in which the unemployment rate never fell below 10 percent and was above 20 percent for 21 consecutive months.

FDR also inspired the will to believe -- and he also had Herbert Hoover on whom to blame all the country's troubles.

It may seem strange, to those who never lived through those times, that someone could be President of the United States for eight straight years and nevertheless escape responsibility for mass unemployment by blaming his long-departed predecessor. But we may yet see a re-run of that scenario in our own time.

Nothing in the amateurish way the current administration has begun suggests that they have mastered even the mechanics of governing, much less the complexities of the huge national problems looming ahead, at home and abroad.

The multiple Cabinet nominees withdrawing before their nomination can come to a vote in the Senate are just one example of this amateurism.

Another example was the Secretary of the Treasury holding a much heralded unveiling of his recovery plan, only to publicly embarrass himself and the administration when his speech made painfully clear that there is no plan, but only pious hopes. The plunge in the stock market after his speech suggests how much confidence he inspired.

There is far more to fear from this administration than its amateurism in governing. The urgency with which it has rushed through a monumental spending bill, whose actual spending will not be completed even after 2010, ought to set off alarm bells among those who are not in thrall to the euphoria of Obama's presidency.

The urgency was real, even if the reason given was phony. President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, let slip a valuable clue when he said that a crisis should not go to waste, that a crisis is an opportunity to do things that you could not do otherwise.

Think about the utter cynicism of that. During a crisis, a panicked public will let you get away with things you couldn't get away with otherwise.

A corollary of that is that you had better act quickly while the crisis is at hand, without Congressional hearings or public debates about what you are doing. Above all, you must act before the economy begins to recover on its own.

The party line is that the market has failed so disastrously that only the government can save us. It is proclaimed in Washington and echoed in the media.

The last thing the administration can risk is delay that could allow the market to begin recovering on its own. That would undermine, if not destroy, a golden opportunity to restructure the American economy in ways that would allow politicians to micro-manage other sectors of the economy the way they have micro-managed the housing market into disaster.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Stimulus Bill Would Bring Return to Welfare

2009-02-12T20:37:00.000-08:00

Posted By Bobby Eberle On February 12, 2009 at 7:36 am

One of the major accomplishments of the 1990s combination of President Clinton and a Gingrich-led Republican Congress was that of welfare reform. Some may argue that it was Clinton's plan. Others would say that the Republicans forced him to do it.

Regardless of where the credit ends up, the notion and structure of the welfare program was fundamentally changed. Now, through Obama's stimulus plan, all that work and effort may be wasted.

As noted in an editorial in National Review, "Democrats have inserted provisions into the catch-all stimulus bill that will reverse Clinton-era welfare reform, re-establishing the wasteful, incentive-killing system whose transformation was the bipartisan pride of the 1990s."

First, some background... Prior to the welfare reform measures promoted by Clinton and Gingrich, there was no incentive to move off the welfare rolls. Rather than a temporary station in life, welfare became a way of life.

As the editorial explains, before the reforms, "the federal government simply gave the states more money for every family they added to the welfare rolls." Of course, the states wanted all the money they could get. So, the more people on welfare, the more money for the state treasuries.

The Clinton-Gingrich reforms replaced that bounty-hunter system with a flat rate for each state, based on population and other factors. That gave state-level welfare authorities a better set of incentives, encouraging them to use their resources in the most effective manner and to reserve them for the truly needy.

The results were successful—spectacularly so. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was followed by reductions in both the number of families on welfare and the rate of poverty. Single women entered the workforce in substantial numbers and the household incomes of former welfare recipients went up. In other words, the incentives to reduce welfare dependence and help people to find work, worked.

The editorial points to a report by The Heritage Foundation which states that "little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform."

Authors Robert E. Rector and Katherine Bradley note that in Obama's stimulus plan "the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads."

Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.

Votes in the House and Senate could come as early as Thursday or Friday for the stimulus plan. As the American people slowly start to digest the impact of the massive government takeover of the economy, public opinion is starting to fall. Karl Rove points out in National Review that "CBS News polling reveals a 12-point drop in support of the bill over the past month." A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports indicates that 67% of those surveyed believe they could do a better job on the economy than Congress.

We must continue to put pressure on our legislators to fight this plan. This is not just a spending plan that America can't afford. It is massive government intervention and left-wing social engineering. Making more people dependent on welfare is not the American way.

++ Click here to contact Congress. Take a stand against the stimulus bill!

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation

2009-02-11T17:31:00.000-08:00

Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 2/9/2009 8:00:00 AM

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

ACLU supported bill

2009-02-10T07:08:00.001-08:00

A call to action from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint to stop ACLU supported bill
Democrats vote to discriminate against Christians and people of faith
President Obama's stimulus bill discriminates against Christians and people of faith. The stimulus bans universities and colleges from using funds to renovate buildings where students engage in "religious worship."

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike from the economic stimulus bill language that discriminates against people of faith. Senator DeMint's amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving restoration funds, from allowing "sectarian instruction" or "religious worship" within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious organizations.

"This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," said Sen. DeMint. "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith. These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to keep people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill.

"This is now an ACLU stimulus designed to trigger lawsuits designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation. This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of 'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America" he continued.

"Our culture cannot survive without faith and our nation cannot survive without freedom. This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable."

This funding restriction is unconstitutional. In the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities (or schools) is unconstitutional.

Pages 164-165 of the stimulus contain the following prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion available for renovation of public or private college and university facilities.

(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich urges Christian activists and other conservatives to e-mail and call their representative and senators demanding that the language discriminating against people of faith be removed.

Gingrich feels that if Christian activists would have enough courage and holy anger to e-mail and call their representatives and senators, a number of Democrats would vote no on final passage. We should demand that this anti-religious provision be removed.

Christians have not expressed enough outrage focused on the concept that people of faith are being taken advantage of by the stimulus bill during a time of crisis. They are being stolen from them when they are down and out and looking in good faith to the government for help. Instead of the stimulus we need, the liberals are getting the pork that they want -- for themselves, their families, and their friends. They are pickpockets and thieves preying on the down and out.

It's as if the Good Samaritan had come over to the man who was robbed and left for dead, bent over, and reached for his wallet and ran on his way instead of helping. It's like the looter who takes advantage of a natural disaster to steal."

The liberals are taking advantage of a crisis, just like Rahm Emanuel said. His quote: "'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,' Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week." - WSJ, Nov. 21, 2008.

America is in crisis, and the liberals are looting America's future to pay off their special interests. This is corruption of the highest order. E-mail and call your representative and two senators today!

Republicans as Democrats

2009-02-03T17:31:00.000-08:00

Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 2/3/2009 10:45:00 AM

A brief glimmer of sanity among Congressional Republicans has been followed, almost immediately, by a return to the more traditional Washington insanity.

Last week, every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the Obama administration's "stimulus" package -- which had stimulated an orgy of runaway spending by Congressional Democrats on everything from sports arenas to sexually transmitted diseases.

This was a rare smart move by the Republicans. If the Republicans had gone along, pursuing the will o' the wisp of "bipartisanship," then if the stimulus had by some miracle succeeded, it would have been a bill for which Democrats would claim credit at the next election.

On the other hand, if the stimulus failed -- which seems far more likely -- then it would be called a "bipartisan" bill, meaning that the Democrats would pay no price at the next election for a colossal failure.

Since President Bush started the "stimulus package" game, this was also an opportunity for Congressional Republicans to cut themselves loose from the political baggage of the Bush administration's unpopularity.

Within 24 hours, however, Republicans in the Senate came out with a plan to have the government fix mortgage interest rates at four percent -- and use taxpayers' money to cover the losses that lenders would otherwise sustain.

It is painfully obvious that government intervention in the housing markets over the past several years has been at the heart of the boom and bust that has led to a huge economic downturn.

It was not the market, but the government, that pushed for abandoning traditional standards for making mortgage loans. That was what got both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb -- and set off economic shock waves when the limb broke.

The last time the Republicans pushed for price controls was during the Nixon administration. It was very popular in the short run. But, in the long run, even Nixon admitted in his memoirs that it was bad for the country.

Price controls have been tried and failed, in countries around the world, going all the way back to ancient Rome and Babylon. Moreover, politicians intervening in the economy is the hallmark of Democrats.

What principle separates the Republicans from the Democrats? If they are just Tweedledee and Tweedledum, then elections come down to personality and rhetoric. If that happens, you can bet the rent money on the Democrats winning.

Those considered to be the smart money among Republicans have been saying for some time that the party has to become more "inclusive" and jettison "outmoded" principles of the Reagan era. But no one has to pass an IQ test to be considered part of the smart money.

Looking at the track record, rather than the rhetoric, the smart money doesn't look nearly as smart.

When have the Republicans won big? When they stood for something and told the people what that something was.

Ronald Reagan was the classic example. But another example would be the stunning Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional elections, which put them in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Articulating the message of Newt Gingrich's "contract for America" was a key to that historic victory.

Too many Republicans seem to think that being "inclusive" means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.

That is precisely what Reagan did and what Gingrich did in 1994. Most Americans' principles are closer to those of the Republicans than to those of the Democrats.

It is the only advantage the Republicans have. The Democrats have the media, the unions, the environmental extremists and the tort lawyers on their side. Why should Republicans throw away their one advantage by becoming imitation Democrats?

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Obama’s Message to Muslims Called ‘Pathetic’

2009-02-01T16:59:00.000-08:00

In his interview with a Saudi-owned TV channel on Tuesday, President Barack Obama referred to “an illusionary past” in the Muslim world that was in fact plagued by turmoil, a leading Middle Eastern expert declared.

Amir Taheri, in a New York Post column headlined “Pathetic Message,” said Obama “looked to the past rather than the future” when he told an Al-Arabiya interviewer he wanted a return to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

But 30 years ago, Taheri noted, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon.

Iranian-born Taheri, whose books include “Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism,” wrote in the Post that “other features of this ‘golden age’” were “the seizure of power by mullahs in Tehran, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the coming to power of communists in the Horn of Africa, the military coup in Turkey, the first Islamist terror attacks in Algeria, unprecedented waves of repression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the imposition of military rule in Pakistan.”

Twenty years ago saw the U.S. arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan, Iraq gassing thousands of Kurds and preparing to invade Kuwait, Iranian mullahs arming Hezbollah units in Lebanon, Turkey launching all-out attacks on Kurdish secessionists, and the Libyan terror network killing American soldiers in Europe and blowing up U.S. jets.

Meanwhile Obama offered only “trite” remarks regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and did not offer any support “to democratic forces facing crucial elections in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Algeria,” observed Taheri, who has written for more than two dozen publications around the world.

“Nor was there any nod toward reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.”

Obama sought to portray himself as a “bridge” between the U.S. and the Muslim world, according to Taheri, who added:

“Casting himself in the role of a ‘bridge’ and dreaming of a return to an illusionary past, Obama appeared unsure of his own identity and confused about the role that America should play in global politics.”

City official retaliates against Prop. 8 supporters

2009-01-31T12:28:00.000-08:00

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.

U.S. economy predicted to collapse under socialism

2009-01-31T12:24:00.000-08:00

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."

White House website under "Civil" Rights

2009-01-30T21:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Are Conservative Leaders Arising From GOP Mire?

2009-01-30T20:12:00.000-08:00

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

Pelosi should abstain from social engineering.

2009-01-30T19:18:00.000-08:00

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.

Incidentally, to keep the population stable in the United States, we need 2.1 children born per married couple. We are below that now.

Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout

2009-01-29T07:21:00.000-08:00

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.

Homosexual sympathizers grab MLK's coattails

2009-01-25T15:28:00.000-08:00

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.

Change we never imagined

2009-01-25T15:13:00.001-08:00

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.

California Assembly seems to be ignoring passage of Proposition 8.

2009-01-25T15:02:00.001-08:00

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.

Obama condemned for expanding taxpayer funded abortions

2009-01-24T12:47:00.001-08:00

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.

Pro-lifers push to 'stop subsidizing' abortion industry

2009-01-04T15:39:00.000-08:00

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.

Let's Hope There is No Flip-Flopping On This Issue

2009-01-04T09:19:00.000-08:00

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.

Texans boot Planned Parenthood

2008-12-30T18:31:00.000-08:00

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/30/2008 8:00:00 AM

Planned Parenthood has been shut down in the Texas panhandle.

American Life League's (ALL) Stop Planned Parenthood, or Stopp International, says it took a long time, but their campaign against Planned Parenthood finally got some results. "For 12 years in the Texas panhandle, there has been a fight against Planned Parenthood," he notes. "Planned Parenthood, in 1997, operated 19 clinics in the Texas panhandle."

Then the state reduced funding for the organization, and pro-life workers also continued in their efforts to shut Planned Parenthood's doors. "And as of December 31, there will no longer be any Planned Parenthood offices in the Texas panhandle," Sedlak explains. "They will all be gone."

The two remaining clinics in Amarillo have disaffiliated with the national organization. Sedlak says other cities can accomplish the same goal if they are determined, and information on that is available on the Stopp website.

Ammunition Accountability Act

2008-12-30T18:06:00.000-08:00

Well... they can't take our guns because they are Constitutionally protected, but they are useless without the non-protected ammunition. Apparently, ammo, isn't protected by the Constitution. Please start writing to legislators and Congressmen to get them to stop this invasive Act. It's just one more freedom taken away. This is the sample legislation from California that is also being considered by 18 other states, so far.

Ammunition Accountability Act
SAMPLE LEGISLATION

An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide
database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles.

Section 1. Legislative Findings.
The State Legislature hereby finds the following:
Each year in the United States, more than 30% of all homicides that involve a gun go
unsolved.
Handgun ammunition accounts for 80% of all ammunition sold in the United States.
Current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has
worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by
law enforcement.
Bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons
of interest in gun crime investigations.

Section 2. Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, “coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a
unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile.

Section 3. Prohibition on possession or sale of non-coded ammunition.
1. All handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after
January 1, 2009, shall be coded by the manufacturer.
a. The calibers covered by the coding requirement shall include: [LIST
CALIBERS].
2. No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this
chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.

Section 4. Authority to establish an Ammunition Coding Database.
1. [AGENCY] shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding
Database (ACD) containing the following information:
a. Manufacturer registry – Manufacturers shall:
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of seven
years concerning all sales, loans, and transfers of ammunition, to,
from, or within the state.
b. Vendor registry – Vendors shall
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Record the following information in a format prescribed by the
[AGENCY]:
a. The date of the transaction.
b. The name of the transferee.
c. The purchaser’s driver’s license number or other
government issued identification card number
d. The date of birth of the purchaser.
e. The unique identifier of all handgun ammunition or
bullets transferred.
f. All other information prescribed by [AGENCY].
iii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of three
years from the date of the recorded purchase.
2. To the greatest extent possible or practical, the ACD shall be built within the framework
of existing firearms databases. The ACD shall be operational no later than January 1,
2009.
3. Privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance. Access to information in the ACSD is
reserved for key law enforcement personnel and to be released only in connection with a
criminal investigation.

NEW SECTION: Section 5. Penalties
1. Any vendor that willfully fails to comply with, or falsifies the records required to be kept
by this bill is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one
year, and a fine of $1,000.
2. Any manufacturer that fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for
a civil fine of not more than one $1,000 for a first violation, not more than five $5,000 for
a second violation, and not more $10,000 for a third and subsequent violation.
3. Any person who willfully destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the
serialization required pursuant to this bill, on any bullet or assembled ammunition is
punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, and a fine of $1,000.

NEW SECTION: Section 6. Funding.
1. Establishing and maintaining the ACD shall be funded by an end-user fee not to
exceed [COST NUMBER, ESTIMATED AT $0.005 PER BULLET OR ROUND
OF AMMUNITION].
2. There is hereby established the Coded Ammunition Fund for deposit of the end-
user fees described in this section. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation, shall
be available to the [AGENCY] for infrastructure, implementation, operational,
enforcement, and future development costs of this chapter.
3. Ammunition manufacturers based within this state may submit a one-time tax
credit application for cost of purchasing ammunition coding equipment. All
applications must be submitted by January 1, 2009.

-- END --

NOTE: To view a more detailed version of Ammunition Coding Database legislation that was proposed in other
states, visit www.ammunitionaccountability.org. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs can also
provide drafting guidance. Contact Briahna Taylor at (253) 620-6640 or btaylor@gth-gov.com

Interesting Opinion Article About Obama and Election

2008-12-28T12:04:00.000-08:00

A plan to survive the Obama years
By Z. DWIGHT BILLINGSLY

Here is the story.

As Jack Buck once said, "I don't believe what I just saw!" Americans on
Nov. 4 turned over control of the United States of America to a management
team possessing no executive experience, having never run, as I liked to
put it, nothing.

Well, Americans usually get the government they deserve, and I urge you all
to get ready for this 21st century version of amateur hour. It's going to
be an embarrassing and dangerous time for America and American ideals.
There won't be much, I'm afraid, to be thankful for.

Bill Kristol, writing in The Weekly Standard, reminded me that every 16
years we get a Democrat president with no experience in national security
or international affairs who's elected after Republican presidents have
made and kept America safe: After Eisenhower, we got Kennedy; after
Nixon/Ford, we got Carter; after Reagan/Bush, we got Clinton. And after
Bush II, we get Barack Obama.

Every strong Republican president who succeeded in protecting America has
allowed Americans to become complacent about national security, thereby
opening the door for weak Democrats who allowed enemies to threaten and
attack America without penalty. Obama will be no different, and Americans
will have to learn again that there can be no economic security without
national security.

That's not to say that Obama's election doesn't come with a couple of
interesting side effects. For example, henceforth no black man in America
may be called unqualified for any job that he might seek, no matter his
prior education or experience level. Want to be a nuclear scientist but
lack a Ph.D. in physics? If the applicant is a black man, it's no problem.
Just offer hope to the profession and promise change from all those stuffy
theorems that have given the discipline its structure over the years, and
you're in.

That's on a par with throwing out the fact that tax cuts lead to more
investment, job creation and increasing government revenues, just because
the black man, that transcendent agent of change, says it's OK.

Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I
should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a
comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I
believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would
be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have
believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming
president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud,
to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.

Jackie Robinson, the first black man in modern-day major league baseball,
illustrates my point. He was the right man with the right combination of
talent, temperament and character at the right time to be successful for
that important "first." Obama? An empty suit who will fail.

I'm going to approach the Obama years the same way liberals handled the
Iraq war. Just as they claimed to support our troops while opposing the
war, I'm going to support my country while opposing Obama and what he
stands for in every way that I can. It's only four years and with the
astute Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate minority leader,
Republicans can stop the Obama extremists for two years until mid-term
elections in 2010 give Republicans the boost in Congress that inevitably
will come.

And in 2012, we'll have Sarah Palin to clean up Obama's mess and remind us
again of America's exceptionalism.

Z. Dwight Billingsly is a principal of Branford Gateway Investment Co. and
a financial services industry specialist for the Missouri Department of
Economic Development. He serves as co-chair of the Missouri Spectrum
political action committee, an auxiliary of the Missouri Republican Party.

E-mail: zdbcomment@gmail.com

U.S. sides with traditional marriage...for now

2008-12-28T11:57:00.000-08:00

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/26/2008 9:30:00 AM

The United States has refused to sign on to a United Nations declaration on sexual orientation.

In all, 67 nations have signed the declaration submitted by France. Piero Tozzi of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, explains the document's assertions. "It basically called upon recognition of two new categories in human rights, one based on sexual orientation and the other one on gender identity," he notes.

Tozzi says the statement's purpose is to decriminalize homosexual conduct. For now, he contends there is no cause for alarm, but the situation could change in the future.

"There is no binding impact. It is purely a moral statement, but once it's in the UN system as it were, it will likely be referenced by advocates," he points out. "And the statements from the French government official Rama Yade said that this is not the end; it is only the beginning."

In spite of homosexual marriage being illegal in 70 nations, Tozzi believes it will achieve international acceptance eventually. He adds that while the United States did not sign on to the declaration, the incoming Obama administration might think differently.

Obama planning billion-dollar 'bailout' for abortion industry

2008-12-21T09:09:00.000-08:00

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/18/2008 6:00:00 AM

A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama's planned $1.5 billion "bailout" of the abortion industry.

Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is hoping a Republican-led effort in the Senate will block Obama's plan to substantially increase taxpayer funding of the abortion industry.

"This billion-dollar bailout of the abortion industry comes at a time, number one, when the economy is suffering dramatically with true need. And number two, it communicates an incredible depth of arrogance, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans -- men and women, no matter who you talk to -- they don't believe that people who don't believe in abortion should be funding it," she contends. "Most Americans don't believe that we should be funding abortions, especially in a time of economic crisis."

The Susan B. Anthony List has started a "Stop the Abortion Bailout" campaign designed to recruit thousands of activists to send letters to their senators "with the goal of securing the 41 votes necessary to sustain a Senate filibuster of the abortion bailout."

Jerry Brown is at it again... California Attorney-General turns against Prop 8

2008-12-21T09:01:00.000-08:00

Lisa Leff - Associated Press Writer - 12/20/2008 7:05:00 AM

SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.

He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."

"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

Starr's co-counsel Andrew Pugno said Brown's decision to challenge the voter-approved measure and the argument advanced by the attorney general was "totally unprecedented."

"His legal duty as attorney general of the state is to defend initiatives passed by the voters," he said.

The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

What news is your child getting at school?

2008-12-21T08:52:00.000-08:00

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 12/20/2008 5:20:00 AM

Parents Television Council is discussing the strengths and pitfalls Channel One news.

Channel One, a television network targeting teens, has been pumped into middle and high schools across America since 1990. Schools enter contracts with Channel One in exchange for media equipment, and those contracts require the network to be aired throughout the school.

Gavin McKernan, a spokesperson with the Parents Television Council (PTC), says although Channel One delivers important news to students, it often adds inappropriate content to its program.

"Unfortunately this station, a lot of times, has been marketing things that are not appropriate for youth," he contends. "And...on their website, for instance, [they] have been marketing for shows like 90210 and Gossip Girl and these [types of shows]."

McKernan also notes Channel One is heavy on advertising and even promotes some things that parents might not want their children to see.

According to McKernan, PTC does not receive many complaints because parents, as well as the PTC, are barred from monitoring the station's content. He adds that PTC has asked to monitor Channel One, but has been denied.

The company that owns Channel One also owns Bus Radio. Bus Radio offers a similar contract in that bus drivers are required to have the station on at all times. McKernan says some bus drivers have complained that they do not like the music or ads, but are forced to keep it on because of the contract.

He believes both Channel One and Bus Radio represent a perversion of the school system in that they basically use a captive audience in order to increase market share. McKernan says parents need to have more control over what their children are exposed to at school.

“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

2008-12-06T00:47:00.000-08:00

Very interesting article by the very person who will have his case reviewed by the Supreme Court Justices Dec. 8th.

December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
- 5:34 am

This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

JAMES BUCHANAN

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.

[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. This makes him NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.