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
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions
'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.
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
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).
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
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.
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?
- 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!
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!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama's 'Pay Czar' -- Welcome to the Twilight Zone
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?
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
