Friday, March 30, 2012

Obama Destroys Off Shore Drilling For Five Years

March 30, 2012 - Tim Brown

It seems that Barack Obama is at it again. When he could do something that would actually help America, he turns his back on it. Yesterday the Obama administration announced a they will delay the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:

The Interior Department’s announcement will put into place what will be a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur. This is tantamount to not dealing with the problem. Does it really take five years to determine this? Really?

The administration cancelled a planned lease sale, which will be put off till at least 2018. This was noted by Virginia governor Bob McDonnell.

Republicans were not happy with this. Representative Doc Hastings (R-Wash), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee said,

“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs. [This] continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America.”

As if this couldn’t be any more stupid, the administration plans to also do seismic testing to help determine the best places for wind turbines and other “renewable” energy products, locate sand and gravel for restoring coastal areas, and identify cultural artifacts such as historic sunken ships.

Sunken ships? Really? All I have to say to that is “I hope the day is near when we finally capture Captain Jack…ur um I mean Barack Obama” and deal with him according to law, our Constitutional law.

The Post reports that environmentalists are already opposing the survey which, conveniently, won’t begin until after the election.

while I am not surprised by this move, what I am amazed at is Republicans being upset, when the fact is they controlled all the branches of government and they didn’t drill either. However, knowing our dependence upon foreign oil, it just makes absolutely no sense for a survey to take five years and on top of that go looking for things such as sunken ships and things of that nature. Leave that to people like Dr. Robert Ballard, not a US bureaucracy.

Obama (& Hagel) In Secret Talks With Iran

by Aaron Klein - 3/29/2012

President Obama has been engaged in secret, back-channel talks with Iran in which he informed Tehran’s leaders he is completely opposed to any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to informed Middle Eastern officials.

The officials told WND the behind-the-scenes talks aim to secure a guarantee from Iran that it will not retaliate against the U.S. in the event of any Israeli military strike, the officials said.

It was unclear what, if anything, Obama offered Iran in exchange for a pledge against targeting U.S. installations, including in the Gulf.

The State Department did not immediately return a WND request seeking comment on the alleged back-door talks.

In a wide-ranging interview March 9 with Al-Monitor, an Arab website founded in the wake of the Middle East revolutions, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel hinted that private approaches to Iran were already occurring.

Hagel is co-chairman of Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. While he was in the Senate he served on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Al-Monitor’s Washington correspondent, Barbara Slavin, interviewed Hagel at Georgetown University, where he teaches a weekly class.

Slavin asked Hagel: “Do you know if there any private approaches going on, or is it all through the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany?

Hagel replied, “I know more than I can tell you; there may be. I hope. I don’t see any other way around this. Because you can’t deal with something … as explosive as this is out in the public.”

According to the Middle East officials speaking to WND, political officials at the Pentagon, coordinating with the White House, have repeatedly asked Israel not to strike Iran.

According to the officials, who are familiar with the talks, the Pentagon has made the following arguments to Israel about why a strike at this time is unnecessary:

•An Israeli strike will not be able to totally destroy Iran’s nuclear project, which is spread out to multiple sites, thus making a successful attack more difficult.

•Iran can rebuild its nuclear infrastructure in a matter of a few years.

•Iran’s nuclear project is currently based on uranium and not the more weaponizable plutonium, giving Israel more time to allow sanctions to work.

•Intelligence agencies allegedly operating inside Iran working to slow Iran’s nuclear progress have had enough success to buy more time.

US Postal Service Wants Out Of Government-Provided Health Insurance

By Patrick Burke - March 30, 2012

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is currently working towards delivering a private health insurance plan to its employees and wants to opt out of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP.)

“If provided the authority to do so, we believe that we can provide our employees and retirees with the same or better health coverage for significantly less cost, ” said Postmaster General and CEO Patrick Donahoe during his testimony to the House Oversight Committee.

The financially strapped USPS recently released a plan to cut costs by 2016 to adapt to a marketplace in which there is less demand for hand delivered mail.

“While I commend Mr. Donahoe for his commitment to implement cost cutting measures, the financial status of the postal service remains untenable,” said Oversight Committee Chairman Dennis Ross (R-Fla.)

“In response to this fiscal crisis, the US Postal Service recently presented its five year business plan to profitability…the centerpiece of this plan involves shifting USPS employees and their retirees from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) to a new USPS run health plan.”

Donahoe claimed a private health plan for the USPS will result in annual savings of approximately $7 billion and will function like any other health insurance plan in the private sector.

Rep. John Lynch (D-Mass.) raised a potential concern of a lack of choice for postal employees in selecting a health insurance plan that is best for them. Donahoe assured there would be tiers of value and quality from which employees can choose, as well as options for employees who have spouses and families.

Moreover, those within the postal service who are eligible for Medicare could enter into the USPS plan as a way for them to cut costs.

“We’d like to have a plan for the current employees and then a wrap-around plan for the Medicare eligible employees that gives them excellent value at a low cost,” said Donahoe.

“So they’d used the Medicare as their primary provider and have this back-up plan from a wrap-around. That saves a lot of money.”

By Donahoe’s estimates, the USPS could implement a fully functional health insurance plan by 2014.

To demonstrate the USPS ability to provide a private health insurance plan and its commitment to saving money, Donahoe identified ways to save the post office money—namely by consolidating office locations and matching the costs of maintaining office facilities with the amount of revenue brought in by the post office each year.

However, health care expert Walton Francis testified to the Oversight Committee following Donahoe and advised against a USPS private health insurance plan.

Francis said the withdrawal of postal workers from the FEHP program would have a detrimental effect on the other federal workers who depend on FEHP for their health insurance.

“The proposal before you is essentially a proposal to dismantle the federal employees’ health benefits program. That program covers eight million people—probably half the plans in that program will be forced out effectively. All people in all those plans will be forced to move to new plans,” said Francis.

“A lot of those people are elderly—don’t want any change. They’re going to be faced with massive change,” he added.

According to Francis, a primary flaw with privately insuring the postal service is the potential cost a “postal service widow” who does not receive Medicare benefits would incur as a result of the change in coverage.

“There are tens of thousands of 80-year-old widows, postal service widows … The premium cost for one of those widows to join [Medicare] parts A and B right now under current law in the Social Security Act is over $8,000 a year – that’s what it would cost to mandate that that widow leave the postal plan she’s now in and sign up for [Medicare] A and B,” said Francis.

Although Francis adamantly disagreed with the proposal to move the USPS to a private health insurer, he did agree with most other aspects of Donahoe’s five-year plan to profitability and urged Congress to facilitate the postal service’s ability to get its fiscal house in order.

The United States Postal Service has not recorded a profit since FY 2006 and will officially be in a “cash crisis” by October of 2013 without congressional action, according to Donahoe’s own testimony.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Trayvon Martin DOES Look Like Obama's Son!

obama's son?

obama's recent suggestion that, "if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin" got me thinking.  If he is referring to Martin's race, because obama is mixed race himself, his son would likely have as much in common with George Zimmerman as he would with Martin.  Yet, if he wasn't referring solely to Martin's race, obama's statement is believable to me. 

I imagine if obama had a son, the kid very well may have been walking around looking like Martin; "thug style" with no parental supervision.  If he had a son, I imagine his Twitter handle would be something like Martin's "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" and his tweets would be similar to Martin's: 'Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!', etc.  Because obama doesn't seem too fond of the concept of personal accountability and because of his belief that government should raise children rather than parents; like Martin, his son likely would have assaulted a bus driver, been suspended from school for truancy, drugs, or graffiti, or been caught with a backpack full of women's jewelry and a burglary tool, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to justify Martin's death because he was a thug or a criminal.  None of the above is punishable by death, and if it is found that Zimmerman was not warranted in his actions, I support prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.  However, if witness testimony is accurate that Martin attacked Zimmerman, slamming his head to the ground and beating him while Zimmerman called for help (heard on 911 tapes and backed by witness testimony and police report), then we are talking a whole different story.

The point I wanted to make with this post goes back to some very enlightening words from Bill Cosby in a speech to the NAACP's celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education (making segregation illegal).

The following are some pertinent excerpts taken from Cosby's 2004 speech:

"We cannot blame white people. The lower economic and lower middle economic people are not holding their end in this deal. In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on. Fifty percent drop out -- rest of them in prison. Fifty percent drop out rate, and people in jail, and women having children by five, six different men. Under what excuse? Grandmother, mother, and great grandmother in the same room, raising children, and the child knows nothing about love or respect of any one of the three of them. All this child knows is “gimme, gimme, gimme.” These people want to buy the friendship of a child, and the child couldn’t care less. these people are not parenting. They’re buying things for the kid -- $500 sneakers -- for what? They won’t buy or spend $250 on Hooked on Phonics."

"It’s not what they’re doing to us. It’s what we’re not doing. 50 percent drop out. Look, we’re raising our own ingrown immigrants. These people are fighting hard to be ignorant. There’s no English being spoken, and they’re walking and they’re angry. Oh God, they’re angry and they have pistols and they shoot and they do stupid things. And after they kill somebody, they don’t have a plan. Just murder somebody. Boom. Over what?"

"I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? And why doesn’t the father show up to talk to this boy? And then they stand there in an orange suit and you drop to your knees: “He didn’t do anything. He didn’t do anything.” Yes, he did do it. And you need to have an orange suit on, too."

"Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged: “The cops shouldn’t have shot him.” What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else. And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if you get caught with it you’re going to embarrass your mother." Not, "You’re going to get your butt kicked." No. "You’re going to embarrass your mother." "You’re going to embarrass your family." If you knock that girl up, you’re going to have to run away because it’s going to be too embarrassing for your family."

"People putting their clothes on backwards. Isn’t that a sign of something going on wrong? Are you not paying attention? People with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn’t that a sign of something or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn’t it a sign of something when she’s got her dress all the way up to the crack -- and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don’t know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail. (When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What’s the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up)."

"I can’t even talk the way these people talk: “Why you ain’t where you is go ra?” I don’t know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with, “Why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this. Well, they know they’re not; they’re just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you’re just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out."

"That‘s not my brother. And that’s not my sister. They’re faking and they’re dragging me way down because the state, the city, and all these people have to pick up the tab on them because they don’t want to accept that they have to study to get an education."

In conclusion:  I have friends who voted for obama because he was black and they wanted a good black role-model for their children.  He obviously isn't upholding this expectation!  Rather than making excuses and promoting racial division in order to garner votes.  Rather than exploiting the death of this young man for your own profit.  Isn't it time to stand up, be real, and speak like Cosby?!  Now that's a TRUE role-model for your children!

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Congressman Allen West Calls DOJ to Prosecute Black Panthers for Hate Crime

Per a Facebook post by Congressman Col. Allen West on Wednesday, March 28, 2012:

“I vehemently condemn the bounty poster emanating from the New Black Panther Party putting a $10,000 ransom up for the capture of George Zimmerman and call upon the US Department of Justice to prosecute their actions, clearly a hate crime. We have seen this type of abhorrent behavior from this group previously in 2008 as part of a voter intimidation action, it is reprehensible. To openly solicit for the death of an American citizen, with reward, is not in keeping with the laws of due process which governs this Constitutional Republic. However, this is to be expected when irrational voices dominate our public dialogue and are fueled by an ideological driven media. I am concerned that the tragic death of Trayvon Martin is being hijacked by malcontents.”

Monday, March 26, 2012

Obama to Putin: I'll Surrender America After Re-election

by Joel B. Pollak - 3/26/2012

Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that an open microphone caught President Barack Obama telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would be prepared to yield to Russian demands on missile defense after his re-election, but needed more "space" until then.

The two leaders were meeting in Seoul, South Korea, and Medvedev immediately promised to relay Obama's message to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin:

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

President Obama has repeatedly backed down on missile defense in the face of Russian demands, most famously abandoning American promises of cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic in 2009.

Republican opponents warn that Obama will follow an even more radical course in his second term than his first, because he will no longer face the same electoral pressures that saw his party lose control of the House of Representatives in 2010.

Book Tells Muslim Men How to Beat and Control Their Wives

Sad...but I guess it's progress for these fundamentalists who currently prefer to douse women with acid or practice honor killing to keep them in line.

In other news: Obama seeks advice on raising girls -- from Turkey's Islamist prime minister.  Maybe he could just purchase this book?! 

Terry Davidson - March 23, 2012

A local bookstore in Toronto has “sold out” of a controversial marriage guide that advises Muslim men on how to beat their wives.

The 160-page book, published by Idara Impex in New Delhi, India, is written by Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who’s described in the book’s foreword as a “prolific writer on almost every topic of Islamic learning.”

The store’s manager, who didn’t give his name, said the book had been sold out for some time, and the store’s owner, whom the manager identified as Shamim Ahmad, refused to comment for the story.

It wasn’t clear whether the shop has ordered more copies of the book, but it’s available at online Islamic bookstores and even through eBay.

In the book’s opening pages, it is written that “it might be necessary to restrain her with strength or even to threaten her.”

Later, its author advises that “the husband should treat the wife with kindness and love, even if she tends to be stupid and slow sometimes.”

Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy ... but should beautify herself for him ... ”

In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

Moderate Muslim voice Tarek Fatah says the shopkeeper should be charged for selling such a book.

“I wouldn’t say it’s hate, but it is inciting men to hit women,” said Fatah, who identified the book’s author as a prominent Islamic scholar. “This is new to you, but the Muslim community knows that this is widespread, that a woman can be beaten. Muslim leaders will deny this, but... ”

Male dominance over women has been making headlines for some time, with the recent lengthy trial and conviction of the Shafia family.

Mohammad Shafia, 59, his second wife, Tooba Yahya, 42, and their son, Hamed, 21, were each convicted in January on four counts of first-degree murder in what was characterized as an honour killing of four female family members as punishment for disobedience. They were handed life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years.

Shafia’s three daughters and his first wife were found drowned in a car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal in Kingston, Ont., in June 2009.

Eric Brazau says he was flipping through the marriage guide while in the bookstore around a month ago.

Brazau bought it out of curiosity but was taken aback when he found dozens of chapters and passages giving Muslim husbands advice on controlling, restraining, scolding and beating their wives.

“At first, I thought that it is incredible that this kind of thing can be found in Canada,” said Brazau. “And then I thought, radical Islam is not coming to Canada, it is already here.”

STUDY: Earth Heated Up in Medieval Times -- Before Human CO2 Emissions

  • Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
  • Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
  • Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'
By Ted Thornhill - March 26, 2012

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon.

More...Australia's giant kangaroos were killed off by humans, not climate change, say researchers

However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn’t true – and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.

‘Ikaite is an icy version of limestone,’ said Lu. ‘The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature.’

It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together - called the hydration water - traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.

This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.

The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.

The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it.

Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

Lu’s team found that in fact, they did.

They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals.

During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there aren’t.

‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’ Lu says. ‘More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.’

The research was recently published online in the journal Earth And Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1.

Government to Force Employers to Hire Unemployed?

Lawmakers in more than a dozen states introduced bills which would make it illegal for businesses to pass over an unemployed applicant in favor of someone who is currently employed.

Proposals pending in Congress would do the same on a nationwide basis. The National Employment Law Project, wants states to add laws to ban discriminatory ads and explicitly bar employers and employment agencies from eliminating from consideration candidates who are unemployed.

Two years ago, the Obama administration discouraged the unemployed from seeking jobs by extending unemployment benefits from 6 months to 99 weeks. Many argued in opposition that by quadrupling the time that someone can collect unemployment benefits the program becomes just another welfare program and that after 99 weeks, those workers would be less qualified for employment opportunities in the future.

The answer…another intrusion by government into the lives of business owners!

Nebraska State Sen. Jim Smith (R), said the bill could leave an employer vulnerable to a discrimination claim any time he or she passed over a jobless person to hire an employed person. "At what point are we going to stop regulating businesses to the point where we discourage them from hiring more people?," he said.

Personnel managers say evidence of a discrimination problem is sketchy and that hiring decisions are based on a host of subjective reasons that defy remedies imposed by laws. Existing law bars hiring discrimination against people because they are collecting unemployment benefits.

It appears once again, the left fails to recognize that the best way to put the unemployed back to work is to get out of the way, permit business owners to make sound business decisions, ensuring their viability and success and allowing the opportunity to create more jobs.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Obama Claims Romney's 'pretending' On Obamacare

Why do I have a bad feeling that this is a glimpse of what is to come?  Most Republicans can agree that the repeal of Obamacare is the single most important task we face in the coming years. Romney promises to repeal the law and I'm sure he intends to.  I wonder though, how he will attack an issue that he fundamentally supports (Government Run Healthcare).  Yikes!!!  I think we are about to find out.

March 22nd, 2012 - Gabriella Schwarz

Mitt Romney is "pretending" the health care plan he instituted in Massachusetts is different than the national plan, President Barack Obama said.

In an interview with Public Radio International that aired Thursday, Obama pointed to the similarities between the two plans, without mentioning the Republican frontrunner by name.

"We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans, including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different," the president said.

The Massachusetts plan served as a model for the Affordable Care Act, signed two years ago Friday. Romney, the state's former governor, has since said the legislation was the correct course for his state but not meant as a model for a national overhaul. But the plan has proved a focal point of criticism aimed at the GOP frontrunner.

In Thursday's interview, Obama said Republican opposition to the plan, including the Supreme Court challenge, is politically motivated.

He said state governors will have a difficult time explaining resistance to the law to their constituents.

"When people see that in fact it works, it makes sense – as it's, by the way, working in Massachusetts – then I think a whole bunch of folks will say 'Why aren't we trying it as well?'" Obama said.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments next week over the individual mandate provision in the law. In their opposition to the legislation, some Republican governors have refused to implement the terms until the Supreme Court rules.

Responding to the president's comments, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul reaffirmed her candidate's plan to repeal "Obamacare ... on day one."

"Mitt Romney has always believed each state should be able to fashion their own health care reforms and, as president, he would replace Obamacare with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health care costs," Saul said in an email.

House Republicans Trying to Protect Military Chaplains and Their Rights of Conscience

March 23, 2012 by Giacomo

Last year, the Pentagon issued a directive to all military chaplains ordering them to be available to perform same sex marriages and unions for military personnel. They were also ordered to make their facilities available for the homosexual ceremonies. Another anti-Christian directive that came out of the Pentagon, which had to have been following the instructions of our Muslim president, said that military chaplains cannot preach against sin in their own churches. Those chaplains caught preaching against any of President Obama’s policies and declaring them to be sinful and wrong will face charges of sedition and treason and brought before a court martial review.

In an attempt to protect military chaplains from being forced to go against their rights of conscience and their religious beliefs, Tim Huelskamp (R – KS) introduced HR 3828. This bill is to be inserted into the 2012 House Defense Authorization Bill where it will define marriage and what will be covered under the rights of conscience for military chaplains.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a similar bill only to have it trashed by the Senate and House conference committee. The Democrats on the committee vehemently opposed the bill, leading to its removal from the larger piece of legislation. With the partisan mentality in Washington, the current bill may very well meet the same fate as it did last year.

Monitoring the situation with military chaplains is Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. She is already seeing chaplains who believe in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality being pressured by military brass to obey the new commands or face punishment. Donnelly commented,

“The army training said, If you cannot reconcile differences with the new law, then the chaplains should have their endorsement withdrawn and they should leave the military. This is not a very good solution.

“It talks about simulated marriages, marriage-like ceremonies. The reason for that is last fall the Pentagon said, We’re not going to violate the Defense of Marriage Act; we’ll have same-sex ceremonies, but we won’t call them ‘marriage.’ That was their way of trying to get around the clear intent of the law.”

Donnelly also believes that one of the best ways to help get Huelskamp’s bill passed by both House and Senate is for as many Americans as possible to write and contact their Representatives and Senators urging them to pass HR 3828. If this is not passed, Christian chaplains will either be court martialed, and have their lives ruined, or they will opt to no longer serve in the military, leaving it wide open to the ever increasing number of Muslim chaplains and none of us want to see that happen.

Rally for Religious Freedom

State Treasurer Don Stenberg

Republican National Committeeman Pete Ricketts

Crowds gathered to rally for religious freedom at the federal courthouses in downtown Omaha and Lincoln today.

The rally was part of a nationwide campaign themed "Stand Up For Religious Freedom—Stop the HHS Mandate!" that took place at 140 locations throughout the country at noon today.

Thousands of Americans of all faiths participated in the peaceful rallies, organized by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society to oppose the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires all employers provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, even in violation of their consciences.

The purpose of today's rally was to re-focus the issue on religious freedom and being forced to break tenants of the faith.

Arch-Bishop Lucas says he wanted the rally to show people that they are united and focused against the threats to religious freedom.

Notable Republican leaders participating in the Omaha rally include State Treasurer Don Stenberg and Republican National Committeeman Pete Ricketts.

Poll: Most back Keystone pipeline

By: MJ Lee - March 22, 2012

By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.

More than half of the adults polled, 57 percent, believe the government should give the green light on the politically divisive project, while 29 percent think it shouldn’t. Fourteen percent said they had no opinion.

Support for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline is significantly higher among Republicans than Democrats — 81 percent of GOP-ers said the government should approve building it, compared with just 51 percent of independents and 44 percent of Democrats who said the same.

Americans in the Midwest and Southern regions of the country, where the proposed pipeline would travel through, were the most likely to think positively of building the pipeline — 68 percent of Midwesterners and 61 percent ofSoutherners — while 52 percent of Americans on the West Coast and 48 percent on the East Coast gave the thumbs-up.

Even though the issue has been front and center in Washington, the poll found that half of Americans are not paying much attention to news about the pipeline. One in four said they are “not at all” following news about Keystone, while another one in four said they are “not too closely” tuning into the topic. Just one out of five said they are following the news “very closely.”

The findings of the survey come as President Barack Obama is set to visit Cushing, Okla., on Thursday as part of an energy tour this week to announce that he is issuing a memorandum to expedite a portion of the pipeline.

The Gallup poll was conducted March 8-11 among 1,024 adults, and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
see Gallup poll

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Rand Paul's Budget Plan to Balance Budget in FIVE Years!

Forget Paul Ryan's Budget! Rand Paul has introduced a very detailed plan to balance the budget and fix the economy within FIVE years, all without raising taxes! In fact...he proposes a 17% flat tax! Now THAT is fairness!  EVERYONE pays the SAME percentage of every dollar they make regardless of age, race, sex, religion, income, etc.  And perhaps the best part, despite Paul's reputation...he has not cut the national defense budget!  And for Medicaid for gives all seniors the same health care plan as Members of Congress.

By Julie Borowski on March 21, 2012

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has released his new budget plan called The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal. His plan does contain some praiseworthy proposals such as cutting the corporate tax rate, repealing ObamaCare and ending forms of corporate welfare. However, it does not cut a single federal department and doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. Paul Ryan’s plan has received tons of media attention but it’s difficult for me to get very enthusiastic about a plan that would take nearly three decades to balance the federal budget.

While the Ryan plan is certainly preferable to President Obama’s budget, it is not as bold as the budget plan introduced by Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint in the Senate. Rand Paul’s plan known as a Platform to Revitalize America would slash four federal departments and balance the budget within five years without raising taxes. Now, we’re talking. The Department of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development would be axed under the plan. Unfortunately, the media has largely ignored this true fiscally conservative budget.

According to the CATO Institute...Paul’s plan would achieve balance by halting and reversing the historic rise in federal spending. Taxes would not be increased, but revenues would steadily increase as the economy recovers.

The following charts compare Paul’s plan versus President Obama’s recent budget submission for fiscal 2012:

While Obama intends to continue spending at a historically high level, Paul would reduce spending as a share of the economy. Paul takes the scalpel to all areas of federal spending, including discretionary, defense, and mandatory. However, it is not a radical plan. In fact, it’s a practical, common sense budget that recognizes that the federal government’s growth has become unsustainable, and thus a threat to our economic well-being and future living standards.

read more details here

Man Jailed, Humiliated & Confined After Running Out of $ to Side Home

By: Mark Saxenmeyer - 3/21/2012

A Burnsville, Minnesota man on his way to work was arrested and thrown in jail without bond, and then subjected to electronic home monitoring.

But it wasn’t for drugs or a DWI or some other major crime.

Burnsville city leaders say Mitch Faber’s dealings with the law all stem from his failure to properly put up siding on his house.

Yep, siding.

Faber says he had every intention of completing the stucco and decorative rock project on his home but he ran into money troubles when the economy soured. Burnsville leaders say they had no choice to enforce the law.

Here’s how a simple code violation spiraled into a criminal case:

Mitch and his wife Jean say it all began back in 2007 when they received a letter from the city of Burnsville saying, in part, "you must complete the siding of your home."

“We were in the process of finishing,” Mitch insists. “This wasn't something that we were trying to avoid doing.”

But in 2009 there were two more warning letters, and in 2010 yet another--this time requiring Faber to appear in court. Burnsville leaders provided 5 Eyewitness News with these 2010 photos of the Fabers' home as proof there was a problem.

“I was expecting maybe a $700 fine,” Faber said. Instead he was given an ultimatum -- finish the siding or go to jail.

So Mitch returned to his house and he and Jean say they spent about $12,000 putting a stucco fa├žade over the plywood exterior. They thought they were finally in compliance. They were wrong.

Faber was then taken into custody in November 2011 after Burnsville inspectors ruled the work was still not satisfactorily completed. A warrant for his arrest had been issued when, according to the city, Faber failed to turn himself in because the house was still not up to code. Faber is adamant it was. Regardless, what came next, he says, was absolutely uncalled for and humiliating.

“I'm walking around in a green and white jump suit, I had to shower in front of a sheriff, I was shackled, my wrists were handcuffed to my waist — for siding.”

“It was insane,” said Jean. “Absolutely insane.”

After two days locked up, a judge agreed Mitch should be released but required him to submit to electronic home monitoring. In Dakota County, that process requires participants — no matter what their crimes -- to blow into a drug and alcohol device every time an alarm goes off.

“They could call me at 2 in the morning and they did,” Faber said.

Burnsville city leaders would not grant 5 Eyewitness News an interview about the Faber case but in an email from Communications Coordinator Marty Doll, he wrote, “”The city feels it provided Mr. Faber ample opportunity (nearly four years) to remedy the situation before issuing a citation…the city’s practice is to only issue citations for property maintenance issues (such as this one) as a last resort. In this case, the city determined a citation was the next appropriate course of action. Once the citation was issued, the matter had essentially left the city’s hands and entered the hands of the court system.”

5 Eyewitness News also called Dakota County Corrections as well as Midwest Monitoring (the company in charge of the electronic home monitoring) but calls were not returned. In a letter dated February 21, 2012, Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom wrote the Fabers, “This was a prosecution initiated by the city of Burnsville through their privately-retained city prosecutor. The County Attorney has no oversight or supervision over city prosecutors…While it was a district court judge who heard this case and made decisions pertaining thereto, judges are employed by the state of Minnesota and not Dakota County.”

The Fabers point to what they call far more glaring code violations outside other houses in their neighborhood. They’d like to know why they were targeted and others weren’t.

“It’s selective enforcement,” said Jean.

Most importantly, though, the Fabers say Burnsville made a mockery of an otherwise law-abiding man.

Asked Mitch, “What did you accomplish other than wasting the city's money, the county's money, our money, and then all the mental and emotional anguish? What did you accomplish?”

Middle-Schoolers Assigned Opposition Research On GOP Candidates (For Obama Campaign)

By Kalyn McMackin - 3/22/2012

A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.

The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.

“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.

The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.

Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.

Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.

“My classmates don’t actually know a lot, but a few of us tended to agree that the most recent instruction on this project just didn’t seem right,” one of the students told TheDC. “Mr. Denman didn’t tell us where to find the information, just to research on them.”

As a result, the school received multiple phone calls from parents frustrated with the political nature of the assignment, the father told TheDC.

“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”

No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.

John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.

“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.

Torre explained that Principal Dr. Catherine Cipperly, who refused to comment, discussed the matter with Denman, citing that students should have been given a choice to research candidates from either major party.

“The principal advised the teacher that he should emphasize to his students that this assignment was meant to learn a process and not to endorse a particular candidate,” Torre said. “The teacher agreed with the principal’s direction.”

A district policy, which addresses employee political activities, states “employees shall not involve their schools in political campaigns, distribute political literature on school property or attempt to indoctrinate students with their personal political beliefs.”

Despite the rule, Denman’s intention was to exercise “a simulation activity with the intent of teaching students about the research process that a campaign committee goes through prior to an election,” Torre said.

The father, who describes himself as conservative, thought Denman’s behavior went too far and needed to be addressed.

“Teachers acting in such manner need to be called out,” he said. “I have no personal animosity toward the teacher in question at all, but let’s be real.”

In hopes of bringing this to the attention of other public school teachers, this father just wants one thing clear: “Leave politics out of the classroom,” he said. “Present a balanced viewpoint, teaching children to listen to all sides and think for themselves.”

Fairfax County, a suburban area situated across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., is by far Virginia’s most populous county and among the state’s most liberal. In 2008, Barack Obama won 60 percent of Fairfax County’s presidential votes, compared to just 39 percent for Sen. John McCain.

The Fourth Trimester Abortion (Pro After-Birth Abortion)

By Daniel Allott - 3.21.12

The anti-life crowd gives new life to arguments for infanticide.

While political liberals are busy advancing the fiction of a conservative "war on contraception," their counterparts in academia are promoting a lie at the opposite end of the reproductive continuum. The anti-life crowd is giving new life to arguments for infanticide.

In a much-discussed recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva take the "pro-choice" argument to its logical and loathsome end. They argue that "when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."

They propose to call the practice "after-birth abortion" rather than "infanticide" to stress their belief that the moral status of a newborn baby is no different from that of an unborn baby.

While other anti-life extremists limit their support for infanticide to those deemed genetically "unfit," Giubilini and Minerva argue that the practice might be acceptable even in "cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

Risks to the well-being of the family include the "unbearable burden that a child can create for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus."

While the authors allow that both the unborn child and the newborn are "human beings," they insist that neither has a right to life because they are "potential persons" not "persons." "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life," they assert.

Predictably, the article has generated a lot of criticism. A Conservative congressman denounced it on the House floor, and both the authors and the journal have received demands for apologies and death threats.

Pro-life advocates shouldn't be upset. Many abortion-rights supporters claim that something magical happens at the moment a baby passes through the birth canal. But the authors start from a premise that pro-lifers have long maintained: that there is no difference between the moral status of an unborn child and that of a newborn child.

The article leaves many questions unanswered. For one, if infanticide were legalized, would the law stipulate how infants could be killed? If infants are no different than unborn babies, can they also be aborted "after birth" in the same gruesome way, torn limb from limb without anesthesia? If not, why not?

Also, if newborns may be killed, why not two-year-olds, who also can have a substantial effect on the "well-being of a family." What about teenagers? What if grandpa becomes an unbearable burden? Can a family euthanize him and call it a 240th trimester abortion?

According to the authors, a rights-bearing person is "an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." The authors claim that babies develop this self-awareness sometime "in the first days or few weeks after birth."

But research and experience demonstrate that human beings have desires, needs and personalities that emerge well before they are born. Many mothers can attest to the reaction of their child in the womb to music, voices and other stimuli.

Yet, according to the authors, "the fetus and the newborn are potential persons" whose interest "amounts to zero."

Arguments for infanticide are not new. In fact, the logic behind them has been embraced at the highest levels of government. As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions.

Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

In 2009, Texas considered legislation that would have defined infanticide as a separate and lesser crime than homicide, with a maximum sentence of just two years in prison.

Parents who kill their newborns are sometimes given lighter sentences than those who murder older children. In Canada last year, a judge cited Canada's acceptance of abortion in giving a woman who strangled and killed her newborn a three-year suspended sentence.

While some advocate infanticide for the burdensome, others propose that their parents receive financial compensation. Earlier this month, parents of a child with Down syndrome in Oregon received compensation in a "wrongful birth" lawsuit.

The couple had undergone prenatal testing, which came back negative for genetic abnormalities. When their child was discovered to have Down syndrome after birth, the couple sued their health provider, arguing that they would have aborted had they known that their child would be born with the genetic condition.

The jury voted in favor of the couple, who received $3 million to cover the estimated extra life-time costs of caring for their child. This case is not an outlier. At least 28 states recognize "wrongful birth" lawsuits.

In our entitlement society, citizens are claiming a right to more than just other people's money. Increasingly, parents feel entitled to perfect children, and thus to discard, or receive compensation for, those they deem to be a burden. In such a society, the threshold for the right to life will continue to rise.

A Safer Society with Guns (a tale of two Colorado universities)

Mar 21, 2012 - Jeff Jacoby

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT put some noses out of joint when it ruled unanimously this month that the University of Colorado's campus gun ban violated a 2003 state law that entitles residents with permits to carry concealed weapons.

One of those noses belonged to Abraham Nowels, a University of Colorado student who wrote to the Denver Post: "We're in the middle of midterms right now, and I can't think of anything I'd rather be focusing on than which of my fellow over-stressed, binge-drinking peers is carrying a concealed weapon into class with me." The Post agreed, pleading in an editorial for "legislators with enough gumption" to change the state's concealed-carry law and "give colleges the power they need to keep students safe."

To those with an emotional bias against guns, it goes without saying that more guns in private hands invariably mean more crime and violence. If the number of people carrying firearms on campus rises, then of course that campus is less safe: What could be more obvious?

But it isn't obvious at all.

While the University of Colorado spent much of the past decade resisting the state's concealed-carry law, Colorado State University complied with it. If the gun controllers are right, Colorado State should have seen a surge in crime, while its gun-banning sister institution should have been an Eden of security and lawfulness. That's not what happened. As Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett write in a new monograph for the Cato Institute, "crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame."

Something similar happened after the US Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision striking down the longstanding gun ban in Washington, DC. The city's mayor predicted in dismay that "more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," yet crime in the nation's capital plunged. Murder nose-dived to its lowest rate in half a century, falling from 186 in 2008 to 144 in 2009 to 132 in 2010 to 108 in 2011 -- a far greater decline, as economist John Lott points out, than in the rest of the country, or in cities of comparable size.

To be sure, correlation doesn't prove causation. But the experience of Colorado and DC should come as no surprise. There is by now so much evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to lower rates of crime that it isn't hard to fathom why fewer and fewer Americans want to ban handguns.ording to Gallup, just 26 percent of the public now thinks the private possession of handguns should be illegal -- down from 60 percent half a century ago. Roughly 1 of every 4 Americans reports keeping a gun to protect themselves or their homes. Having a gun makes many people -- for good reason -- feel safer.

How often firearms are used defensively is a much-debated question in American criminology. Respected studies over the years have come up with estimates that range widely, from more than 100,000 defensive gun uses annually to as many as 2.5 million. Whatever the number is, it clearly isn't trivial. An enormous amount of death, bloodshed, and suffering is prevented in this country by ordinary citizens with firearms.

That doesn't mean terrible things can't sometimes happen when a gun is used for protection. Trayvon Martin, an Orlando teen, was shot dead last month by a Florida man who claims he was acting in self-defense. Yet the teen carried nothing more deadly than a bag of candy, and police told the gunman -- a Neighborhood Watch patrol member -- not to follow him.

Such tragic tales inevitably draw the spotlight. Far more common, but far less likely to be played up, are cases where guns are used to scare off, resist, or thwart a genuinely dangerous criminal. For their Cato paper, Cramer and Burnett assembled nearly 5,000 news stories reported by the media between 2003 and 2011. Their catalogue includes instances of armed customers preventing a store from being robbed, of victims fighting off would-be rapists, of senior citizens defending against a home invader, of attempted carjackings foiled because the driver had a gun -- even of self-defense against deadly animals.

Of course, most defensive gun uses never make the news at all. As Cramer and Burnett observe, "Man Scares Away Burglar, No Shots Fired," is not a very compelling headline.

But with or without headlines, millions of Americans grasp instinctively that guns make us safer. For when honest citizens carry weapons, criminals are less likely to attack -- and those who do are more likely to fail.

Obama Under Fire For ‘Secret Interpretations’ of Patriot Act

March 21, 2012 - Tim Brown -

It appears the White House is coming under fire by Congressional Democrats, the media and civil libertarians in regards to the Obama administration’s secret interpretations of the Patriot Act.

Last week Senators Ron Wyden (Rep-OR) and Mark Udall (Rep-CO), members of the Senate intelligence committee, wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder saying that their interpretation of the Patriot Act and claiming intelligence operation based on that interpretation is not as critical to national security as the administration says it is.

Both senators are also claiming that Americans would be “stunned” if they knew what the government was really doing based on the legal theory being employed through the Patriot Act.

Senator Richard Durbin (Rep-IL) said that the government’s use of “Section 215 is unfortunately cloaked in secrecy. Some day that cloak will be lifted, and future generations will ask whether our actions today meet the test of a democratic society: transparency, accountability, and fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution.”

The Department of Justice has said that revealing anything about the secret spy program could “cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”

Now we all know when government claims it won’t reveal how they are using these things and claims national security, that what they are really saying is “we are doing something that we don’t want you to know about because if you knew about it you might come to DC and string us all up.”

By the way, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The New York Times have lawsuits pending that would seek to force the administration into disclosing how the Patriot Act has been interpreted.

It appears those lawsuits will be dismissed.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

NPR Plays Race Card on Obamacare

 by Joel B. Pollak - 3/20/2012

A reminder from the mainstream, tax-supported media: if you oppose ObamaCare, that may be because you are a white racist who hates our black president.

That's the gist of Shankar Vedantam's story this morning on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, which reports on a new study published by Michael Tesler in the American Journal of Political Science.

Tesler presents data "that suggest that the racial attitudes of ordinary Americans have shaped both how they feel about the health care overhaul, and how intense those feelings are."

In particular:

Tesler finds that blacks have become increasingly supportive of health care under Obama's watch. Among whites, Tesler finds a sharp divide between whites who have a liberal outlook on racial issues compared with those who have a conservative outlook on racial issues.

Yet correlation does not imply causation, and the key to understanding the divisions over ObamaCare is not race but politics.

As UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose notes in Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, the most important factor in political conflict in the United States is ideology--the liberal versus conservative divide.

So the key is not whether people have a liberal or conservative "outlook on racial issues," but whether they have a liberal or conservative outlook, period.

And the key factor in growing political divisions is not that Barack Obama is a black president, but that he is a particularly divisive one--far more so than his last Democratic predecessor--passing ObamaCare with no Republican votes and distorting the parliamentary rules of the Senate to do so.

That reality does not stop NPR from using Tesler's research to tout race as playing a "powerful role" in debates over ObamaCare--just in time for the second anniversary of the law's passage, and the start of Supreme Court arguments about whether it is constitutional.

In 2010, the media did their best to tarnish opposition to ObamaCare with false accusations of racism, and lies about the "N-word" being hurled by Tea Party demonstrators at black legislators on Capitol Hill.

There they go again...

Aborted Babies Chopped Up & Sold in U.S. w/Obama Approval

This eye-opening article is worth your time!!!  It uncovers ugly truths about the abortion industry including the murder of babies that survive abortions in order to harvest and sell their body parts.  Victims include babies as old as 3 to 5 months along.  Take a look at one of the many aborted baby body part price lists available to puruse on the internet.

Did you know that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to medical researchers all over America? There is a federal law which is supposed to ban this practice, but it contains a gigantic loophole that abortion clinics are using to sell huge amounts of aborted baby parts to the scientific community. The loophole in the federal law allows "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." But there are no guidelines as to what those "reasonable payments" should be and the Obama administration is not about to start prosecuting abortion clinics. So aborted baby parts from American babies will continue to be very quietly sold for profit to medical researchers and most Americans will never hear anything about it. But future generations will look back in horror at what we allowed to be done right under our noses.

With the full approval of the Obama administration, one company in the United States has plans to inject aborted baby brain cells into the eyes of patients to see if that will help improve their vision. The following is from a recent article on

Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life uncovered the information showing a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration uses brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision.

As Fischbach correctly notes, a fetus must be at a certain stage of development before brain tissue can be harvested for this kind of research....

“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.”

But the harvesting of tissue and organs from aborted babies is definitely not new. It has been going on for a long time.

For example, a recent article posted on describes the very big business that the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle does in aborted baby parts....

It's known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. Last year the Puget Sound Business Journal stated the lab "in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines."

The lab's grant records indicate it received $579,091 from the NIH last year. To date, it has retrieved the products of 22,000 pregnancies. According to a description the lab provided in its most recent grant applications, an increase in nonsurgical abortion methods has "created new obstacles to obtaining sufficient amounts of high quality tissue. To overcome these problems and meet increasing demand, the Laboratory has developed new relationships with both local and distant clinics."

Once again, it is supposed to be against federal law to buy aborted baby parts from abortion clinics. But this "problem" is avoided by taking advantage of the loophole that allows for "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue."

An article posted on describes how this system works....

1) A baby parts "wholesaler" enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly "site fee" to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.

2) The buyer - usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency - supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.

3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.

4) These parts are "donated" by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and "donates" them to the buyer. The buyer then "reimburses" the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.
In the end, nobody is technically "buying or selling" anything but they all get what they want and a lot of money changes hands.

A number of years ago an abortion industry insider came forward with shocking details of how this organ harvesting operation actually functions. The following is from a very eye-opening InvestigateDaily article....

It was an interview that shocked America. An Insider, spilling the beans on massive malpractice to a reporter on ABC’s 20/20. Only this time, it wasn’t Big Tobacco in the gunsights, it was the US abortion industry, exposed as harvesting the organs from aborted babies. According to former abortion clinic technician Dean Alberty, clinics were harvesting eyes, brains, hearts, limbs, torsos and other body parts for sale to the scientific market: laboratories wanting to test new drugs or procedures, or researchers trying to find the causes of genetic disorders or discover new ways of treating disorders like Parkinsons.

Sometimes babies actually survive the initial abortion procedure and workers actually have to kill the babies themselves before harvesting the organs....

Alberty worked for a Maryland agency called the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which essentially acted as a brokerage between universities and researchers seeking body parts, and the abortion clinics providing the raw material. Alerted by the clinics about the races and gestations of babies due to be aborted each day, AGF technicians would match the offerings with parts orders on their client lists. Alberty and his colleagues would turn up at the abortions that offered the best donor prospects to begin dissecting and extracting what they needed before decay set in.

“We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in…[to] procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular patient charts—we had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for.

“We were taking eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, and especially cardiac blood…even blood from the limbs that we would get from the veins” he said.

Alberty told of seeing babies wounded but alive after abortion procedures, and in one case a set of twins “still moving on the table” when clinicians from AGF began dissecting the children to harvest their organs. The children, he said, were “cuddling each other” and “gasping for breath” when medics moved in for the kill.

You can read the rest of that shocking article right here.

So are you sick to your stomach yet?

This is a hard article to write, but the American people need to be confronted with the truth. If we ignore the horrors going on right under our noses, then that would make us just like so many of the other nightmarish societies throughout history that we rightly condemn.

Sadly, most Americans don't even realize that large numbers of consumer products on our supermarket shelves contain ingredients which have been cultivated using aborted human fetal cell lines.

This information is not hard to find.

But people do not like to talk about it.

There are price lists for human fetal tissue all over the Internet. You can find one example right here.

So does it bother you that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to researchers all over America?

Or are you perfectly fine with it?

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

NY Mayor Forbids Food Donations That Don't Meet Health Requirements

March 20, 2012 by Gary DeMar

How many times have you heard government officials say that we need government funding to help the poor? You would think that anyone donating food to homeless shelters would be appreciated by any city government. Not so the city of New York.

For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation. They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. . . . The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.

These food donations are now being regulated by the mayoral task force, the Health Department, and the Department of Homeless Services. In order to be DHS compliant, the donated food must first be checked for serving sizes, salt content, fat and calorie content, and fiber minimums.

These donations don’t cost the city a penny. The food is donated. It’s not dug out of garbage bins. If a restaurant were selling it, you would probably pay top dollar for it. DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond “insists that the institutional vendors hired by the shelters serve food that meets the rules but also tastes good; it just isn’t too salty. So, says the commissioner, the homeless really don’t need any of the synagogue’s food.”

Give me a break! Give me leftover food from a pot-luck dinner anytime over some lowest-cost “institutional vendor” any day of the week.

Says Rabbi Allen Schwartz of Ohav Zedek, “Jews have been eating chulent [a traditional Jewish stew] and kugel [a noodle casserole] for a long time, and somehow we’ve managed to live long and healthy lives. All we want to do is to continue sharing these bounties with our neighbors.”

Let me tell you what this is really all about. The goal of government is to make people dependent on government. Government doesn’t like competitors, so it uses its ever-expanding authority and power to eliminate any person or agency that might inhibit its ability to be the all inclusive benefactor. It can do this through the power to tax and make laws. The city taxes the people, pays for the food with the confiscated tax dollars, and then claims credit for the handout. Herbert Schlossberg captures the scene for us in his book Idols for Destruction:

Looking to the state for sustenance is [an act of worship]; we rightly learn to expect food from parents, and when we regard the state as the source of physical provision we render to it the obeisance of idolatry. The crowds who had fed on the multiplied loaves and fishes were ready to receive Christ as their ruler, not because of who he was but because of the provision. John Howard Yoder has rightly interpreted that scene: “The distribution of bread moved the crowd to acclaim Jesus as the new Moses, the provider, the Welfare King whom they had been waiting for.”

So in the end, the people receiving the food will say, “Isn’t mayor Bloomberg generous. Look at all the food he gives us. Bless you Mayor. Long love Mayor Bloomberg! Hail Caesar, I mean, Mayor Bloomberg!”