Thursday, May 31, 2012

Dems Kill Bill Banning Sex-Selection Abortions

By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/31/12 

The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was turned away with 246 voting to ban sex-selection abortions and 168 voting in favor of allowing sex-selection abortions. While that's a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote, and in this case, would have required more support from Democrats.

Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill needed roughly 30 more votes for approval.

Suspension votes are normally used for non-controversial bills, but the GOP-backed bill was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in an apparent attempt to show that Democrats oppose certain policies.

In some cases, Republicans have rescheduled these bills for regular consideration after they have failed, allowing for passage by a simple majority. But Republicans gave no sign that they would try again with PRENDA.
Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated that the issue of stopping sex-selective abortion is important enough that the would try again, but he was not specific.

"This is an important issue to the American people," Boehner said to reporters off the floor. "This type of sex selection most Americans find pretty repulsive, and our members feel strongly about it. That's why it is being brought to the floor."

During debate on the bill Wednesday, Republicans said the bill is consistent with the broader U.S. position that sex-selective abortion should be condemned around the world.

"In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selective abortion worldwide," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill. "Yet, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selective abortion in any way."

While some Democrats made it clear that they oppose sex-selective abortion, they indicated that they oppose the bill's enforcement provisions, which they said would put in place an unacceptable limit on women's rights to choose abortion.

"We can all agree that women should not choose to terminate a pregnancy based solely on gender, but this bill criminalizes a legal procedure," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said Thursday afternoon.

"The bill includes a provision that would allow a women's husband or parents, by merely alleging that an abortion is because of gender, to seek injunctive relief to prevent the doctor from performing abortion procedures, sending an incredibly private and personal decision into the courts," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) added Thursday.

"It is another Republican intrusion into a woman's right to choose," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) of the GOP bill on Wednesday. "Women should be able to make such sensitive and private decisions with their families, their doctors and their god, free from the fear of the police."

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

Democrats voting for it were Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

2nd ‘Gendercide’ Video Showing Planned Parenthood’s Sex-Selection Abortion Assistance

May 31, 2012


On Tuesday, Live Action, a pro-life group based in San Jose, California, released the first part of its series on sex-selection abortion, the process of terminating pregnancies based on an unborn child’s gender. Part one of the “Gendercide: Sex Selection in America,” series showed a Planned Parenthood counselor in Austin, Texas, allegedly giving advice on how to obtain a gender-based abortion.

The second part, released this morning, allegedly showcases a similar conversation recorded at a NYC-based Planned Parenthood office earlier this year. In the undercover clip, an employee allegedly helps a woman (an actress brought in by Live Action) determine if her child is a female so that a requested sex-selective abortion can take place. 



A description of the YouTube video, posted by Live Action, has more about the conversation that is sure to trouble pro-life activists:
In the video, Planned Parenthood social worker Randi Coun advises the woman on an early, definitive method to tell the gender of her child in the late first or early second trimester: “So if you were to have what’s called a CVS test, which is, do you know what that is?” she asks, referring to the genetic Chorionic Villus Sampling test. “It’s done between 11 and 13 weeks, so it is a test that you could do now.” CVS tests have a risk of miscarriage of about 1 in 100, which Coun did not mention, and are typically done to test for genetic disorders in a pregnancy.

Coun also reassures the woman that she can carry her pregnancy farther into term before her abortion. “An abortion at any stage up to 24 weeks is considered a safe procedure,” she asserts. ” It’s not that it’s unsafe, or that there’s a lot more risk involved, it‘s just there’s more steps involved and it’s just a little more complicated.” Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Center in New York City does abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy and is the organization’s national headquarters.

“I can tell you that here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or a bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy,” Coun adds concerning the woman’s request for a sex-selective abortion. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards yesterday opposed a ban on sex-selective abortions on the grounds that it would “limit [a woman's] choices as she makes personal medical decisions.”

Watch the undercover interaction, below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-abortion-group-releases-2nd-gendercide-video-showing-planned-parenthoods-alleged-sex-selection-abortion-assistance/

Obamacare More Than Doubles Health Costs for College Students

- by Tad Cronn

Well, the bills for all that “low-cost” government health care are starting to come in at a private college in Tampa Bay.

Students at Clearwater Christian College are starting to receive letters from the school notifying them that their student health insurance fees next term are going to more than double.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adds some benefits, but one thing it doesn’t do is make health care more affordable.

Fox News reported on the case of one student who had paid $600 for his health fee this past year being billed more than $1,300 for the coming fall.

According to Clearwater administrators, the cost increases are directly attributable to Obamacare. The letter sent to students read, in part:

“Due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA – commonly known as health care reform), the cost of student health insurance has doubled. In addition, most insurance carriers are hesitant to provide contracts for this insurance due to the unpredictability of the cost of the claims.”

Some Catholic universities, including Franciscan University in Ohio and Ave Maria University in Florida, have dropped student health insurance plans due to the Obama Administration’s mandate that they cover abortions, sterilizations and contraceptives, against Catholic teachings.

At least 43 Catholic organizations, including the University of Notre Dame, have sued the federal government over the Obamacare mandate.

Rep. Bill Young, who represents Clearwater, was among those in Congress who opposed Obamacare. He said, “Despite our warnings and telling our colleagues this was bad legislation, they passed the bill, and now we’re finding out that all of the things we told them are coming true.”

And worse is still to come.
 

A No Confidence Vote For Obamanomics




Consumer confidence took a "surprise" tumble in May, as home prices hit 10-year lows. Tell us again why economists keep calling bad economic news about Obama's so-called recovery "unexpected"?

Analysts had predicted the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index would climb to 70 in May. Instead it dropped more than four points to 64.9, the biggest drop since last fall.

It's the latest in another round of disappointing numbers. Just a few weeks ago, new jobs came in "unexpectedly" low. And before that, GDP data disappointed.

Underperforming economic indicators have been so common under Obama that the only mystery is why the experts keep getting caught off guard.

In the case of the Consumer Confidence Index, the current number — bad as it is — doesn't even tell the whole story.

First, it's worth noting the index has fallen for three months. Even if it had hit forecasts, it would still be well below 90, which signals a healthy economy.

The current reading is worse when you realize that under President Bush — you know, the guy who Obama says ruined the economy — confidence averaged 88.

That's despite two recessions, a terrorist massacre and two long wars. Throughout Obama's "recovery," the index has averaged 57.

To really get a sense of how dismal Obama's confidence ratings have been, you need to compare them to those during the Reagan recovery (for a visual display, see chart).

The 1981-82 recession lasted almost as long as the last one — 16 months vs. 18 months — and pushed unemployment higher. Yet confidence roared back as Reagan's economic policies powered a strong and sustained recovery, with the index topping 100 most months.

What reason do people have to feel confident today?

Almost three years into the recovery, unemployment is still above 8%, household incomes are down more than 5%, gasoline prices remain at historic highs, and the economy can only eke out meager gains.

On top of this, we learned this week that housing prices are back at their mid-2002 levels. So, naturally, Obama's again making excuses and shifting blame.

It's the fault of the long recession, he says. The economy is still facing "head winds." The GOP is "standing in the way" of his new stimulus spending plans and creating "uncertainty" with its calls for more spending cuts in exchange for another debt ceiling increase.

The real reason the economy is so vulnerable to "head winds" is because Obama's recovery has been so lousy. That has nothing to do with the recession, since deep recessions are typically followed by even more powerful recoveries.

Indeed, the only reason the economy continues to struggle for breath is because Obama continues to choke off its air supply. Even now, he has no clue how his policy prescriptions of vast new federal spending, gargantuan debt, massive regulation, a government health care takeover, and endless bashing of businessmen, profits and the "rich" are hampering growth.

Still, we are confident of one thing. The economy will come roaring back to life once all that stops.

Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates U.S. Public Schools?

by Aaron Klein - May 30, 2012

A flurry of news media reports last week highlighted a Harlem public elementary school that will become the first in New York to require students to study Arabic.

Entirely unreported is that the organization that co-created and funded the Arabic language program for the New York school, maintains close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, while the group’s founder also started the Al Jazeera television network.

The Qatar Foundation International, or QFI, a nonprofit group financed by the government of Qatar, gave Harlem’s Hamilton Heights, a K-5 public school, a $250,000 grant to support the Arabic program for three years.

The school’s Arabic language program was reportedly developed by QFI and the the Global Language Project.

In addition to the Harlem school, QFI just awarded “Curriculum Grants” to seven U.S. schools and language organizations to “develop comprehensive and innovative curricula and teaching materials to be used in any Arabic language classroom.”

The schools include Bell High School, a Los Angeles public school, and Safford K-8 in Arizona’s Tucson Unified School District.

QFI, based in Washington, D.C., is the U.S. branch of the Qatar Foundation, founded in 1995 by Qatar’s ruling emir, Sheikha Hind bint Hamad Al Thani.

Thani is still the group’s vice-chairman, while his wife, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, chairs the organization’s board.

Thani also launched Al Jazeera in 1996 and served as the television network’s chairman.

The Qatar foundation is close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In January, it launched the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics under the guidance of Tariq Ramadan, who serves as the center’s director.

Ramadan is the grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna. Ramadan was banned from the U.S. until 2010 when the Obama administration issued him a visa to give a lecture at a New York school.

The Qatar Foundation, meanwhile, named several institutions after Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many regard Qaradawi as the de facto spiritual leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The foundation instituted the Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi Scholarships and in 2009 established a research center named the Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal.

Qaradawi has personally attended scores of foundation events, including conferences at which he served as a keynote speaker.

Qaradawi achieved star status because of his regular sermons and interviews on Al Jazeera.

Two weeks ago, Qaradawi was in the news after he told Egyptian Muslims it was their religious duty to vote for one of three Islamic candidates in the country’s presidential election, describing them as the “best for Egypt” because they will “apply the Islamic Shariah and achieve justice.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism documents how Qardawi openly permitted the killing of American troops in Iraq and praised the “heroic deeds” of “Hamas, Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades and others.”

Reports by the London newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat repeated Israeli claims that Qaradawi once served to fund “the heart of Hamas,” the Al-Islam Charity, through his Welfare Coalition.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates-u-s-public-schools/?cat_orig=education

CBO: Obama Stimulus May Have Cost as Much as $4.1 Million a Job


  
 
By James Pethokoukis - May 30, 2012

The Congressional Budget Office in a new report:
When [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019.

CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $831 billion.

By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of March 2012. CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies and drawing on various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. …

On that basis CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2012 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent,

– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.1 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points,

– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million and 1.5 million,

– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.3 million to 1.9 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
OK, so without the stimulus, there would be anywhere from 200,000 to 1.5 million fewer people employed right now? That means the current cost-per-job created is somewhere between $4.1 million and $540,000.



At the very least, I think the CBO report should raise more questions about whether $831 billion of temporary tax cuts and government spending was the best use of that money back in 2009. It should also make Washington cautious about further such stimulus measures if the U.S. economy should slip back into recession. Better we try what Sweden did.

And, again, here is the CBO’s take on the long-run impact of the stimulus:
In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016.

But CBO expects that the legislation will have no long-term effects on employment because the U.S. economy will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in the long run. ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.

To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates.
 http://blog.american.com/2012/05/cbo-obama-stimulus-may-have-cost-as-much-as-4-1-million-a-job/

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks


New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause.

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.

In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.

The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.

In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.”

But others said consumers should be free to choose.

“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side.

Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.

“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.”


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Planned Parenthood Encouraging Sex-Selection Abortion

by Steven Ertelt - 5/29/12

The investigative pro-life group Live Action, which has released videos exposing the abuses at the Planned Parenthood abortion business across the country, has released a new video today showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, Texas encouraging a woman to get a sex-selection abortion.

The video shows a Planned Parenthood staffer encouraging the woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is the first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” that Live Action tells LifeNews will be exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a Planned Parenthood counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender.

“The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.”


The woman asks, “Do you think I should go and just ask for an ultrasound and just not tell [the doctor] that I’m gonna terminate if it’s a girl, or…I just feel like there’s been some judgment for my…”

“To be honest with you, um, I would probably think so,” the Planned Parenthood staffer responds.

“But do you think I still just shouldn’t worry about telling them that I would be terminating if it’s a girl?” the pregnant patient repeats later.

“Right,” Planned Parenthood says. “I would.”

Live Action says the late-term abortion is offered for gender selection even though doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

In the video (seen below), the Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. The abortion facility staffer also tells the woman to “just continue and try again” for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, “Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy.”

Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, condemned Planned Parenthood for its willingness to facilitate sex-selection abortions.

“The search-and-destroy targeting of baby girls through prenatal testing and abortion is a pandemic that is spreading across the globe,” she said. “Research proves that sex-selective abortion has now come to America. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is a willing participant.”

UPDATE: Planned Parenthood has responded to the video by essentially saying it will do abortions for any reason and adding that the staffer int eh video violated unnamed policies and has since been fired from her position.



A few years ago, a national study showed the possibility that the practice of sex-selection abortions has made its way from Asia to the United States. Researchers Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of the National Academy of Sciences say their analysis of the 2000 Census shows the odds prematurely increasing for Asian-American families from China, Korea and India to have a boy if they already have a girl child.

 On Wednesday, Congress will debate the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), which would ban sex-selective abortions nationally.

“Planned Parenthood and their ruthless abortion-first mentality is the real ‘war on women’,” says Rose. “Sex-selective abortion is gender discrimination with lethal consequences for little girls.”

The complete, unedited video and transcript can be viewed at www.ProtectOurGirls.com, a hub of research and information on sex-selective abortions that Live Action has started.

Planned Parenthood has already attempted to run damage control regarding the video expose’. The abortion business worked its contacts in the media in recent weeks to try to head the potential probe and its results off at the pass. Weeks ago, Planned Parenthood went to the liberal Huffington Post to try to do damage control before the results of any possible Live Action investigation are made public.  Planned Parenthood told the Huffington Post it may be facing another campaign from Live Action to expose its practices on how it would handle someone seeking a sex-selection abortion.
According to Planned Parenthood spokesperson Chloe Cooney, clinics in at least 11 states have reported two dozen or more “hoax visits” over the past several weeks, in which a woman walks into a clinic, claims to be pregnant and asks a particular pattern of provocative questions about sex-selective abortions, such as how soon she can find out the gender of the fetus, by what means and whether she can schedule an abortion if she’s having a girl.

While patient privacy laws prohibit Planned Parenthood from offering specific details about the visits and where they occurred, Cooney told The Huffington Post that the incidents are so unusual and so similar to each other that they have raised concerns among the organization’s executives that the visits are being recorded as part of a concerted anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.

“For years opponents of reproductive health and Planned Parenthood have engaged in secret videotaping tactics with fictitious patient scenarios and selective editing in an attempt to promote misinformation about Planned Parenthood and our services,” Cooney said. “As with the prior instances, we anticipate that once again this group, likely in coordination with a broad range of anti-abortion leaders, will soon launch a propaganda campaign with the goal of discrediting Planned Parenthood, and, ultimately, restricting women’s health.”

While Planned Parenthood has no proof that Live Action is behind the current series of encounters, Cooney said the group is the most coordinated in their operations and that the recent string of incidents “follows their pattern exactly.”
Planned Parenthood’s attempt here to head off the results before the Live Action releases them was not the first occasion on which it attempted to do so. Planned Parenthood representatives spoke with the Washington Post just a short time before Live Action released the sex trafficking videos showing Planned Parenthood staffers arranging abortions for victims. The abortion business also spoke with the Washington Post to put its spin on the breaking of the story of Komen for the Cure cutting its funding — causing a massive backlash and an eventual reversal in its decision.

A handful of states specifically prohibit sex-selection abortions — Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois — but Planned Parenthood’s representative made it appear the abortion business would have no problem with doing abortions for those reasons. In fact, comments from Planned Parenthood’s representative make some wonder whether the abortion business would ever ask if a woman or couple wanted an abortion for that reason.

“Decisions about whether to choose adoption, end the pregnancy or to raise a child have to be left up to a woman, her family and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor,” Cooney said.

The Post also quoted one Asian-American activist who appeared to oppose legislation to ban sex-selection abortions.

“Abortion restrictions are a non-solution, and Planned Parenthood and others who have been providing necessary women’s health care for gazillions of years are not the perpetuators of the war on women.”

Later, Americans United for Life attorney Anna Franzonello, in a new column at the Washington Times, provided more evidence showing Planned Parenthood may be willing to tolerate such gender-based abortions.

For example, in opposition to a Missouri bill that would ban sex-selection abortions, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist recently testified that the organization “condemns” sex-selection abortions. However, when a legislator asked her to answer whether Planned Parenthood would refuse to perform such abortions if asked by a patient, she dodged the question with political rhetoric. Three times she refused to answer the question, even when asked directly to give a “yes or no” response. Americans United for Life was there, testifying against the discrimination against women inherent in sex-selection abortions.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Leslie Kantor and Dr. Carolyn Westhoff penned an article in which they, too, claimed the abortion chain “condemns” sex selection. However, their article also tellingly admits, “That doesn’t mean we always agree with the decisions made by people who seek our help.” Thus, it appears that in Planned Parenthood-speak, “condemnation” of sex selection does not include “will not participate” in the abortion.

As reported by the Huffington Post, “None of [Planned Parenthood‘s] clinics will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selection abortion.”

It seems fairly clear, despite Planned Parenthood’s claimed “condemnation” of sex selection, it is a willing participant in sex-selection abortions unless it becomes illegal.
Franzonello suggests Planned Parenthood, if it turns out to have been a subject of another undercover expose’, will likely dismiss the probe as biased and misleading rather than answer the charge that it tacitly supports sex-selection abortions.
Predicting the outcome of rumored current investigations, Planned Parenthood has said, “We expect that the materials eventually released will focus on Planned Parenthood’s nonjudgmental discussions with the various women who posed as possible patients [seeking sex-selection abortions].”

Employing the term “nonjudgmental,” Planned Parenthood hopes that readers will think “innocuous” and move on. But step back a second. Think about what “nonjudgmental” is being applied to: “discussions” about killing a baby girl because she is female. Not “judging” gender-based killing is taking a side.

Moreover, engaging in “nonjudgmental” discussions about sex selection undermines Planned Parenthood’s assertion that “Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country.” The veracity of Planned Parenthood’s statement that it “finds the concept of sex selection deeply unsettling” should be found in any of its “discussions” about sex selection.

The mere fact that Planned Parenthood is mounting a public relations campaign before new allegations of bad behaviors casts doubt on those claims. If Planned Parenthood’s “discussions” were in accord with mainstream American values that reject gender-based killing, it would have nothing to fear from their public release. There would be no story to get in front of, no need for damage control.

What is important, though, is that Planned Parenthood’s participation in this war on women does not end with its “nonjudgmental” discussions. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, appears willing to carry out sex-selection abortions.
If Planned Parenthood is indeed arranging sex-selection abortions for women and couples who want boy babies over girls, the further public damage to its tenuous reputation may be hard to calculate.

Live Action has been instrumental in exposing how the nation’s biggest abortion business covered up cases of statutory rape and sex trafficking by arranging abortions on girls who were victimized. Live Action also exposed how Planned Parenthood would provide erroneous information about fetal development and abortion’s risks and alternatives to women.

Live Action also released videotaped footage of calls to 30 Planned Parenthood centers nationwide in 27 different states where abortion facility staff were asked whether or not mammograms could be performed on site. Every one of the Planned Parenthood centers admitted they could not do mammograms. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, told the women calling that they will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admitted that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/29/video-planned-parenthood-encourages-woman-to-get-sex-selection-abortion/ 

Unions = Lobbyists / "There Won't Be Jobs Left To Protect"



by: Bryan Baumgart - May 30, 2012

It always amazes me when the same folks that despise lobbyists can somehow rationalize support for unions.  

Unions ARE lobbyists! 

They may be WORSE than lobbyists because they not only employ the same tactic of bribery used by lobbyists, but they also use much more sinister tactics such as bullying and threats!

The dictionary definition of "lobbyist":
  • a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group's special interest.  
This is precisely what the unions do!  Unions and lobbyists both go after taxpayer money by influencing (through bribes or threats) the government officials that oversee the dispersion of the taxpayer's money.  Our representatives sit across from the union bosses at the bargaining table.  Union leadership promises to keep those government officials in office in exchange for lavish perks at taxpayer expense.  Perks that average citizens don't receive, such as the pension and healthcare benefits that are sinking cities like Omaha today!  Average citizens not only pay for their own retirement and healthcare, but union bosses request that average citizens also pay for their over-the-top benefits as well!  Those union leaders also make it clear to those elected officials sitting across the table from them, that failure to comply with requests for lavish perks will cost them their office.  

This is what we see being played out in Wisconsin today to Governor Scott Walker, who had the bravado to stand up to the unions and take away their right of collective bargaining over pensions and healthcare. The unions have already spent over $60 million dollars in an attempt to recall Walker.  They have succeeded in forcing a recall election to be held in Wisconsin on June 5th, despite the fact that Walker's actions have been overwhelmingly successful.

It is interesting that the 99% Occupy Movement folks aren't up in arms over the division of class contained within union systems.  Think of it this way.  The upper class is made up of top union officials, the middle class being union members, and the lower class being the taxpayers.  The top union officials aren't really concerned with protecting jobs or even the rights of union members, they are concerned with protecting unions. As long as powerful unions exists, the ability to blackmail government officials (or corporations in the case of private unions) for lavish perks will remain a reality.  The top officials (upper class) welcome extravagant salaries and benefits while tossing a bone to union members (middle class) to appease them and maintain support.  Who pays for this extravagance?  The taxpayers (lower class) of course! So who will stick up for the taxpayer's interest if government officials fall to bribery and bully tactics?!

I have family and friends who are union members and although they don't agree with the politics pushed by the unions, they state that, "Unions protect my job."  What they fail to realize is that because of union politics, there won't be jobs for unions to protect!  Need an example?  Just look to Detroit and the automaker unions, where the cost of lavish perks has made it impossible for once dominant American auto companies to compete with foreign auto companies out of China and Japan.  And once again, average citizens are on the hook.  To cover the cost of the union's demands, American auto companies have been forced to raise the prices of their autos while passing that cost onto consumers.  And when GM still couldn't compete, it was the taxpayers that were forced to bail them out to the tune of almost $50 billion dollars!


Union supporters argue that foreign automakers have the advantage through cheap labor; however, foreign automakers such as Toyota efficiently produce more autos here in America than the domestic auto makers.  What's the difference?  You guessed it...the absence of unions!

And then of course there is the union employees themselves who are bullied by the unions.  Employees forced to join unions against their will.  Employees forced to contribute money that is spent to elect candidates or to push policies to which they are personally opposed.


Which segues nicely into two points that were brought up above.  Price increases and minimum wage increases.

Unions support an ever increasing minimum wage.  Raising minimum wage leads to inflation and therefore doesn't leave anyone better off than where they started.  In fact, it leaves them worse off in many instances as companies are forced to move jobs overseas to remain competitive on the world marketplace, or close up shop all together. Current wage is better than NO wage.  A better answer is to battle inflation to increase the purchasing power at current wages.


Many folks call corporation evil and call for an increase in their taxes.  "Pay your fair share!, they cry." They fail to realize that corporations never have and never will pay taxes.  They simply pass along taxes to consumers (the same people calling for tax increases on corporations) through price increases.  Calls for increasing corporate taxes equate to calls for increasing taxes on consumers!  


Unions at one time served a useful purpose.  The champion of fair labor practices, wages, working conditions, etc.  They were set up to protect the common man.  Now who will protect the common man from the unions?!!!


READ MORE BELOW:

Unions Must Go

What Public Employee Unions are Doing to Our Country

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Indiana School Voucher Program Saves Money


From Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents - Parent Advocate

Vol.19, Issue 2 - May 2012

Indiana's new school voucher program has increased options for 4,000 low-and-middle-income families to attend private schools of their choice.  Now the program is saving money for the state due to transfers from public to private schools.  Do you need proof?  The Indiana Department of Education recently announced that the first year of the voucher program will result in $4.2 million in annual savings statewide.  This money is being redistributed to public schools statewide.  School choice is a win-win situation for private and public schools.
www.nebcathcon.org

How Obama’s Bailout of GM Subsidized China


by Gary North - May 25, 2012

In 2009, the Obama administration turned over $49.5 billion in bailout money to General Motors.

The company knew what to do with this money. It created jobs in China, where it has 2,700 dealerships. It also had its Cadillac division sponsor a movie produced by the Communist Party of China that praises the history of the founding of the Party.

This is called “branding.” Message: “The Chinese Communist Party is the Cadillac of Communist parties.”

The head of GM bragged in a speech in China that 70% of GM’s cars are made outside the USA.

You say you never heard about this. I wonder why not. Keep reading. It gets worse.

GM in 2010 said that it had repaid the 2009 loans. It did, too, and then borrowed money back at 5%. It had been paying 7%, which was a subsidy at that low rate to a busted company. Such a deal!

Over half of the bailout money went to buy GM shares, not make loans. That $26 billion in shares will be repaid (bought back by GM), we are assured, when GM’s shares hit $50. GM’s shares are under $25 today.

You say you didn’t know all this. You say it smells like crony capitalism to you. Me, too. But our sense of smell doesn’t count.

Then there was the government’s decision to force GM bondholders to lose their right of first repayment in the bankruptcy, which the law had previously guaranteed them. Instead, the government turned 40% ownership over to the United Auto Workers for its pension fund. The bondholders got stuck with shares in the company, which are down almost 50% from the 2011 transfer price of $40. Remember that? There was no hue and cry.

Here is a brief documentary on The GM-China connection. It is marred by one thing. It says that the government bailed out GM and Chrysler to the tune of $80 billion. But $30 billion went to Chrysler. It’s still crony capitalism, but the documentary is on GM. My rule: never overstate your case. Just tell the story. This story is surely worth telling. No one has told it any better.



http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/05/25/how-obama-bailout-of-gm-subsidized-the-chinese-where-70-of-gms-cars-are-sold/

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret

By Victor Thorn - May 21, 2012  

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?

Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.

Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”

These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable. Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.”

Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.

LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space.

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.”

Globalist Treaties Terrible for America

By Victor Thorn

During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Becky Fenger, a political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration.

“What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”

When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”

According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental.

“These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them. Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”

She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”

Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.

“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history? They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.”

AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.

“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution. Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.”

The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good. Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.

AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point.

He agreed, telling this writer on May 11, “Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”

Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House?

By Victor Thorn

Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?

Doubters should be reminded of a Feb. 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She [Hillary] has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.”

Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s Mar. 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast. “While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.” Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable.

A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.

While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”

To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitled Inside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations. “She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.”

The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career. In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”

But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns.

Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=4207

Labor Statistics Show Obama Worst Record in Past 25 Years


- by Giacomo

The Obama administration wants you to believe that he has helped create several million jobs and is the labor hero of the day.  But, if you look at the figures released every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will quickly see that he has the worst record over the past twenty-five years.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publish a number of labor statistics, but perhaps one of the most telling is the employment to population ratio.  They look at the available work force population compared to the number of people that are employed.  By work force population, they consider people that are over sixteen years of age minus members of the armed forces, those in prisons and mental institutions.

Over the past twenty-five years or 300 months, the ratio of employed people compared to available work force has always been over 60% except for the past 32 months.  Under the presidency of Barack Obama, the employment to population ratio has run from 58.7% for a high to a low of 58.2%.

One of the interesting aspects of Obama’s 32 worst months is that they all encompass the time frame of his supposed recovery.  In other words, ever since Obama proclaimed that the recession was over in June 2009, we have experienced the lowest employment to population ratio in 25 years.

Prior to Obama’s low ratio figures, the lowest month was December 2008 when it dipped to 61.0% as President George W Bush was about to leave office.  Additionally, the worst month under any other president in the past twenty-five years was still higher than the best month under Obama.

If President Obama wants to make job loss a campaign issue with Mitt Romney, then Romney’s camp needs to let all of America know just who has the worst employment to population ratio over the past twenty-five years.  Romney also needs to stress that these figures also reflect Obama’s self-pronounced recovery.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/5365/labor-statistics-show-obama-worst-record-in-past-25-years/#ixzz1wHEwwKcw

Congress May Turn Over Internet Regulation To UN

by: Tim Brown - May 28, 2012

The US House of Representatives will vote on a measure this week as to whether or not they will hand over regulation of the internet to the United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Other nations such as China, Russia, Brazil and India among other UN members are backing a proposal to put the control of internet regulation in the hands of the UN.

This would give the United Nations control over many aspects of the internet, including cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the web address system. Currently the present operation of the internet is operated by various interests and not particularly government.

The Hill reports that Larry Strickling, who heads up the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said the the measure would impose “top-down regulation where it’s really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren’t.”

We do find some ray of hope from the House though that indicates passage of such a measure would face an uphill battle. In April a resolution was introduced by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) in response to the ITU. H.R. 628 states,

“It is the sense of the House of Representatives that if a resolution calling for endorsement of the proposed international code of conduct for information security or a resolution inconsistent with the principles above comes up for a vote in the United Nations General Assembly or other international organization, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations or the United States representative to such other international organization should oppose such a resolution.”

According to Govtrack.us the resolution has only a 25% chance of passing in the House. How can this be with a Republican led Congress? It should be getting hefty support. It’s time to put the fire under the feet of our representatives and demand passage of the resolution and not turn over internet control to the United Nations.

http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/congress-may-turn-over-internet-regulation-to-un/

U.S. Bishops Prepare Catholics for Civil Disobedience