Friday, June 29, 2012

Who Really Won on the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision


by: Bryan Baumgart

Pending the outcome of the November elections it's hard to determine the ultimate winner in yesterday's decision. Most conservatives felt a pit in their stomach immediately after the decision was announced.  Due to the "teasing" offered during the obamacare hearings three months ago, they felt fairly confident that obamacare would fall when the mandate was struck down.  Libs and Dems rightly claimed victory because obamacare did not fall.  But he who laughs last laughs loudest!

As the dust settled, conservatives began to realize that perhaps Justice Roberts had not betrayed them after all.  Perhaps the decision was part of a veiled and brilliant strategy.  If obamacare had fallen due to the mandate being struck down only on the grounds of the "commerce clause", similar legislation could pop back up in the future.  However, due to the court disagreeing with obama and ruling the mandate a tax, Republicans have the opportunity to repeal the law through the reconciliation process with a simple majority of Romney and 51 votes in the Senate, avoiding filibuster. 60 senators are no longer necessary. 

The ruling has also appeared to have passified the left while energizing the right.  The Romney campaign pulled in $1 million dollars within 3 hours of the ruling.  He finished the day with over $4 million dollars in donations.  Meanwhile, the DNC is so broke they are considering cancelling opening ceremonies at their National Convention.  The ruling has also saddled obama with responsibility for the largest tax increase in the history of the world!  A very regressive tax that disproportionately hits the middle class. It reveals obama as either a liar or a very incompetent Constitutional Scholar.  History shows that elections aren't kind to middle-class tax hikers or liars, and this ruling has granted obama the title of both!  It appears the pendulum has finally been pulled too far left. Get ready for the swing. Perhaps never before has the right been so fired up! (not even election night 2008). 

In reality, the Supreme Court's decision was exactly what everyone expected three months ago before the hearings. We are actually right where we expected to be right now, except the left was just passified while the right needed this catalyst to be energized and determined enough to dominate the elections, repeal the law, and seat judges swinging the bench far to the right. 

The only thing standing in the way of repeal appeared to be the threats and bribes surrounding implementation of state exchanges before November.  Obama had bribed states with federal funding for exchanges and threatened them with forcing the federal version of exchanges on them if they did not implement them right away.  States were threatened with losing federal funding for medicaid if they did not play ball, but the court nixed that threat as well, giving Republican Governors the ability to "play ball".  As reported by the Washington Examiner on Drudge yesterday, “The Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform”.

If there was ever a call for the factions of conservatism to come together...Thursday was it!  This is the time to join forces with ALL of the groups with the common goal of taking the 2012 elections, repealing obamacare, and placing conservative judges on the bench!  Establishment, Ron Paulers, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Constitutional Conservatives...everyone! Time to unify and make this era of the lib's nothing more than a dirty stain on America's history!
"There is one more step in deciding obamacare's fate. Mitt Romney will appeal the Supreme Court decision to the ultimate arbiter - the American people. We expect a decision on November 6th. Oral arguments have already begun."

Monday, June 25, 2012

Immigration Reform


by: Bryan Baumgart 

Incentive and Motivation 

We have to take away the incentive to immigrate illegally and motivate LEGAL immigration.  We do so by removing the job opportunities for ILLEGAL immigrants and replace them with job opportunity for LEGAL immigrants.  This helps us keep better tabs on who is coming and going and helps immigrants become productive, contributing, taxpaying members of society rather than living at our expense. 

Remove incentive for illegal immigration:
  1. Establish an effective “e-verify” system such as a website to verify the authenticity of social security numbers with the potential to print off the verification for record keeping.
  2. Crack down on employers that violate the law through huge crippling fines, especially for repeat offenders.

Motivate legal immigration:
  1. Streamline the immigration process so those immigrating legally don’t have to watch folks jump in line and avoid the long waits and outrageous costs associated with legal immigration.
  2. Increase the number of immigrants we welcome each year.
  3. Provide a one-year grace period for all illegal immigrants currently residing within the country to begin the process of legally immigrating to this country.
  4. Begin actually enforcing immigration laws including detention and detainment.

Monday, June 04, 2012

1930s Photos Show Greenland Glaciers Retreating Faster Than Today!

By Lewis Page -  2nd June 2012

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.

The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island's coasts.

After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.

Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State uni.

There's much scientific interest in the Greenland ice sheet, as unlike most of the Arctic ice cap it sits on land: thus if it were to melt, serious sea level rises could occur (though the latest research says that this doesn't appear to be on the cards).

It's difficult to know exactly what's happening to the Greenland ice in total and very different estimates have been produced in recent times. However Professor Box says that many glaciers along the coasts have started retreating in the past decade.

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.

Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now.

Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.

At any rate, the new information from the old Danish pictures adds some more data to the subject. The new study by Box and his co-authors is published by Nature Geoscience, here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_retreat/

Friday, June 01, 2012

Louisiana's Bold Bid to Privatize Schools


By Stephanie Simon - June 1, 2012

Louisiana is embarking on the nation's boldest experiment in privatizing public education, with the state preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out of the public schools to pay private industry, businesses owners and church pastors to educate children.

Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kids will get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than 120 private schools across Louisiana, including small, Bible-based church schools.

The following year, students of any income will be eligible for mini-vouchers that they can use to pay a range of private-sector vendors for classes and apprenticeships not offered in traditional public schools. The money can go to industry trade groups, businesses, online schools and tutors, among others.

Every time a student receives a voucher of either type, his local public school will lose a chunk of state funding.

"We are changing the way we deliver education," said Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who muscled the plan through the legislature this spring over fierce objections from Democrats and teachers unions. "We are letting parents decide what's best for their children, not government."

BIBLE-BASED MATH BOOKS

The concept of opening public schools to competition from the private sector has been widely promoted in recent years by well-funded education reform groups.

Of the plans so far put forward, Louisiana's plan is by far the broadest. This month, eligible families, including those with incomes nearing $60,000 a year, are submitting applications for vouchers to state-approved private schools.

That list includes some of the most prestigious schools in the state, which offer a rich menu of advanced placement courses, college-style seminars and lush grounds. The top schools, however, have just a handful of slots open. The Dunham School in Baton Rouge, for instance, has said it will accept just four voucher students, all kindergartners. As elsewhere, they will be picked in a lottery.

Far more openings are available at smaller, less prestigious religious schools, including some that are just a few years old and others that have struggled to attract tuition-paying students.

The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said.

Other schools approved for state-funded vouchers use social studies texts warning that liberals threaten global prosperity; Bible-based math books that don't cover modern concepts such as set theory; and biology texts built around refuting evolution.

TEACHERS WEIGH LAWSUIT

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers can be used for religious education so long as the state is not promoting any one faith but letting parents choose where to enroll their children.

In Louisiana, Superintendent of Education John White said state officials have at one time or another visited all 120 schools in the voucher program and approved their curricula, including specific texts. He said the state plans more "due diligence" over the summer, including additional site visits to assess capacity.

In general, White said he will leave it to principals to be sure their curriculum covers all subjects kids need and leave it to parents to judge the quality of each private school on the list.

That infuriates the teachers union, which is weighing a lawsuit accusing the state of improperly diverting funds from public schools to private programs of questionable value.

"Because it's private, it's considered to be inherently better," said Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. "From a consumer perspective, it's buyer beware."

To date, private schools have not had to give their students state standardized tests, so there's no straightforward way for parents to judge their performance. Starting next year, any student on a voucher will have to take the tests; each private school must report individual results to parents and aggregate results to the state.

The 47-page bill setting up the voucher program does not outline any consequences for private schools that get poor test scores. Instead, it requires the superintendent of schools to come up with an "accountability system" by Aug. 1. Once he does, the system cannot be altered except by legislative vote.

White would not say whether he is prepared to pull vouchers from private schools that do poorly on tests.

He pointed out that many kids applying for vouchers are now enrolled in dismal public schools where two-thirds of the students can't read or do math at grade level and half will drop out before they graduate high school. Given that track record, he argues it's worth sending a portion of the roughly $3.5 billion a year the state spends on education to private schools that may have developed different ways to reach kids.

"To me, it's a moral outrage that the government would say, 'We know what's best for your child,'" White said. "Who are we to tell parents we know better?"

That message resonates with Terrica Dotson, whose 12-year-old son, Tyler, attends public school in Baton Rouge. He makes the honor roll, but his mom says he isn't challenged in math and science. This week she was out visiting private schools. "I want him to have the education he needs," she said.

The state has run a pilot voucher program for several years in New Orleans and is pleased with the results. The proportion of kids scoring at or above grade level jumped 7 percentage points among voucher students this year, far outpacing the citywide rise of 3 percentage points, state officials said.

Studies of other voucher programs in the U.S. have shown mixed results.

In Louisiana the vouchers are available to any low- to middle-income student who now attends a public school where at least 25 percent of students test below grade level.

Households qualify with annual income up to 250 percent of the poverty line, or $57,625 for a family of four.

Statewide, 380,000 kids, more than half the total student population of 700,000, are eligible for vouchers. There are only about 5,000 slots open in private schools for the coming year, but state officials expect that to ramp up quickly.

NO FISCAL ANALYSIS

Officials have not estimated the price tag of these programs but expect the state will save money in the long run, because they believe the private sector can educate kids more cheaply than public schools.

Whether those savings will materialize is unclear.

By law, the value of each voucher can't exceed the sum the state would spend educating that child in public school -- on average, $8,800 a year. Small private schools often charge as little as $3,000 to $5,000 a year.

Yet at some private schools with low tuition, administrators contacted by Reuters said they would also ask the state to cover additional, unspecified fees, which would bring the cost to taxpayers close to the $8,800 cap. The law requires the state to cover both tuition and fees.

In the separate mini-voucher program due to launch in 2013, students across Louisiana, regardless of income, will be able to tap the state treasury to pay for classes that are offered by private vendors and not available in their regular public schools.

White said the state hopes to spur private industry to offer vocational programs and apprenticeships in exchange for vouchers worth up to $1,300 per student per class. Students can also use the mini-vouchers to design their own curriculum, tapping state funds to pay for online classes or private tutors if they're not satisfied with their public school's offerings.

State officials will review every private-sector class before approving it. They are still working out how to assess rigor and effectiveness.

The state has not done a formal fiscal analysis, but public school advocates say subtracting the costs of vouchers from their budgets is unfair because they have the same fixed costs -- from utilities to custodial services -- whether a child is in the building four hours a day or six. White responds that the state is not in the business of funding buildings; it's funding education.

While public schools fear fiscal disaster, many private school administrators see the voucher program as an economic lifeboat.

Valeria Thompson runs the Louisiana New School Academy in Baton Rouge, which prides itself on getting troubled students through middle and high school. Families have struggled to pay tuition, she said, and enrollment is down to about 60 kids.

"We're a good school," Thompson said, "but we've been struggling fiscally."

The vouchers have brought in a flood of new applicants and the promise of steady income from taxpayers. Thompson enrolled 17 new students in two days last month and hopes to bring in as many as 130. "I'm so grateful," she said. "You can't imagine how grateful."

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601

Venezuela Bans Private Gun Ownership

June 1, 2012


Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition.

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October.

Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

The government has been running a gun amnesty in the run-up to the introduction of the new law to try to encourage people to give up their illegal arms without fear of consequences.

One member of the public in Caracas told the BBC: "They're killing people every day. This law is important but they need to do more, they're not doing enough now."

Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

Criminal violence is set to be a major issue in presidential elections later in the year.

Campaign group The Venezuela Violence Observatory said last year that violence has risen steadily since Mr Chavez took office in 1999.

Several Latin American countries have murder rates far higher than the global average of 6.9 murders per 100,000 people.

According to a recent United Nations report, South America, Central America and the Caribbean have the highest rates of murder by firearms in the world.

It found that over 70% of all homicides in South America are as a results of guns - in Western Europe, the figure was closer to 25%.

Analysis

Besides the health of President Chavez, security is the main concern for voters ahead of presidential elections in October.

While voters don't seem to hold Mr Chavez responsible for the insecurity, the situation has worsened throughout his 13 years in office.

The government's most recent statistics put the murder rate at around 48 per 100,000, although some non-governmental organisations estimate it's much higher - 60 per 100,000 in 2011, one of the highest rates in the world.

Critics say the new gun laws and other recently announced measures, like a victim's compensation fund, are just the latest in a long line of failed attempts to bolster security.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18288430

Thursday, May 31, 2012

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/

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

New York Loses $45.6 Billion as 3.4 Million Residents Leave High Tax State

Republicans Not Democrats Have Better Plan For Social Assistance

by: Bryan Baumgart - May 28, 2012

I ran across a stat today (there are over 65 million Catholics in the US which means Catholics, and Christians, and anyone of faith... following the precepts of their faith alone could control the outcome of elections) and it made me consider why so many Catholics and Christians and those of all faiths would ever vote for the democratic party. They do so (often ignoring important precepts of their faith such as the right to life), rationalizing their decision by telling themselves that by voting democrat they are somehow helping the poor and needy.

This illustrates a most urgent fact. The Republicans need to do a much better job communicating the reality that if one truly wants to help the poor and needy, wealth is required to do so. That while the democrat’s social policies such as entitlement programs are aimed at helping the poor and needy, the democrat’s economic policies destroy the wealth required for ongoing charity.

That Republican economic policies that lead to wealth creation, combined with Republican social policies encouraging charitable giving through tax credits not only leads to more effective social assistance (because government programs are very ineffective including government social programs), but guarantees the sustainability of social assistance for the poor and needy. AND…furthermore, it does so while respecting the potential of the individual and encouraging the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

While the democrat’s entitlement programs destroy personal accountability and breed generations of dependence, charities supported by Republican policies encourage and motivate the individual to strive to reach their full potential rather than enabling dependence. THIS should be the Republican’s #1 message, and we should communicate the message much more loud and much more clear!!!


The party currently has a stigma of creating wealth for selfish purposes.  To change this perception, in all the GOP says and does, it should be stressed that the party seeks to create wealth in order to better serve the needy. The concept should become a central principle of the Republican platform.


* The Republican Party will seek to help our brothers and sisters who have fallen on difficult times, through business friendly economic policies which create wealth and through the encouragement of increased charitable giving to those private charities which efficiently and effectively serve the needs of our brothers and sisters in helping them back on their feet and back on their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

U.S. Has Never Occupied Mexico

 May 15, 2012 -  Tiffany Gabbay 

As it turns out, the Spaniards occupied Mexico for some 300 years and even the word Hispanic was one employed by the Romans when they occupied what now is Spain. So, the Spanish language that is spoken across Latin America is a result of Spanish occupation. Likewise, it was Spain that occupied Mexico for hundreds of years.

In 1846 the Mexican-American war began in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas. Mexico considered Texas part of its territory despite the Texas Revolution nearly a decade prior. Mexico never acknowledged Texas’ independence.

Ultimately, the Americans won the war with Mexico but on February 2 ,1848, the two countries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe which stated that U.S. troops would withdraw from Mexico, including Mexico City and take ownership of the Southwestern United States.

What’s more, the U.S. agreed to buy the land from Mexico for $15 million, even though it was won squarely in victory and there was no obligation to do so. Not at any time did the United States occupy nor rule Mexico. The United States did not subject Mexicans to our form of government nor did it leave troops stationed in the country.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/we-never-occupied-mexico-beck-schools-eva-longoria-on-her-mexican-history/

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves'



Saturday, May 12, 2012

Inside Romney's Private Fundraiser (Omaha)

 - by Bryan Baumgart - May 10, 2012

Governor Mitt Romney visited Omaha today, speaking to an audience of about 500 people at a private fundraiser hosted by Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman at the downtown Hilton.  More than $800,000 was raised for Romney in what Omaha businessman Bruce Lauritzen called the most successful political fundraiser in Nebraska history.

After the private fundraiser, Romney spoke to a crowd at a public rally at Rick’s Café Boatyard.

Romney pointed out that President Clinton often described himself as a new Democrat, but that President Obama is anything but…referring to him as an “old Democrat” who is much more liberal than Clinton.

“He's not the new Democrat. He's the old Democrat. Bill Clinton said the era of big government is over. This president has brought back the era of big government with a vengeance,” Romney said.

“Obama wants “hope” and “change”.  Well I agree.  I hope to change the out of control spending he is doing now,” Romney said.

Romney chided Obama’s attempts at painting himself as a supporter of energy independence, stating that Obama has prevented oil exploration, hindered the coal industry, and claims we don’t’ have enough coal and oil resources to support this country.

He stated, “I support coal, oil, wind, solar and any means of energy we can harness. Obama say’s he supports all of the above, but what he really means is that he supports all energy sources that come from above ground.”

Romney pointed out Obama’s spending record which includes racking up $5 trillion in national debt by spending more than all of the previous presidents combined.

“If he gets another four years, that’s going to go up another $4 trillion,” he said.

Obama wants to keep it a secret, but Romney said he plans to inform college students what their paychecks will look like if Obama is allowed to continue racking up debt.

Romney promised his first priority after becoming president would be to repeal Obamacare.  He also promised to get the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada here as well.

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

The Reality of Voter Fraud


 By John Fund - May 2, 2012


The 2012 elections will feature many close races, likely including the presidential contest. That makes concern about voter fraud and ballot integrity all the more meaningful, and a conference held here last weekend by the watchdog group True the Vote made clear just how high the stakes are.

“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

Indeed, a brand-new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem, with whites registering 63 percent agreement and African-Americans 64 percent. A Fox News poll taken last month found that 70 percent of Americans support requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity and citizenship before casting a ballot. Majorities of all demographic groups agreed on the need for photo ID, including 58 percent of non-white voters, 52 percent of liberals, and 52 percent of Democrats.

Catherine Englebrecht, the Houston businesswoman and mother who founded True the Vote in 2009 after witnessing an ACORN-style group registering thousands of illegal or nonexistent voters in Houston, told the voter observers from 32 states gathered for the summit: “There is nothing more important this year than your work in making sure legitimate votes aren’t canceled out by fraud.”

Liberal groups ranging from the ACLU to the NAACP oppose voter-ID laws, claiming that voter fraud is almost nonexistent and that an ID requirement would amount to voter suppression. It’s certainly true that in-person voter fraud — the type of fraud most easily fought with voter-ID laws — isn’t the whole picture. Voter-ID laws must be combined with tighter controls on absentee ballots, the tool of choice of fraudsters. But filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just last month how easy — and almost impossible to detect — voter impersonation can be: A white 22-year-old assistant of O’Keefe’s was offered the Washington, D.C., primary ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder, the most visible opponent of ID laws.

Just this week in Fort Worth, Texas, a Democratic precinct chairwoman was indicted on charges of arranging an illegal vote. Hazel Woodard James has been charged with conspiring with her non-registered son to have him vote in place of his father. The only reason the crime was detected was that the father showed up later in the day to vote at the same precinct. Most fraudsters are smart enough to have their accomplices cast votes in the names of dead people on the voter rolls, who are highly unlikely to appear and complain that someone else voted in their place.

One of the highlights of the True the Vote conference was a speech by Artur Davis, who was a Democratic congressman from Alabama until last year. Davis has been an up-and-coming black Democratic leader, having been selected to second the nomination of Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver.

But in 2009 he decided to vote against Obamacare because he viewed it as unworkable and too expensive. When he ran the next year in the Democratic primary for governor in Alabama, he was attacked as disloyal and defeated by a coalition of liberals, teachers’ unions, and old-style black political machines.

He told me that the voter suppression he most observed in his 68 percent African-American district was rampant fraud in counties with powerful political machines. To keep themselves in power, these machines would frequently steal the votes of members of minority groups. “I know it exists, I’ve had the chance to steal votes in my favor offered to me, and the people it hurts the most are the poor and those without power,” he said.

Davis made it clear in his speech to True the Vote that much of the opposition to voter-ID and ballot-integrity laws is a sad attempt to inject racism into the discussion and intimidate supporters of anti-fraud laws. “This is not a billy club, this is not a fire hose,” he told his audience while holding up his driver’s license. “Where is this notion that if I have a right [to vote], that I don’t have to be bothered with responsibility?” He concluded with an appeal for all sides to eschew racial appeals: “We have to be one country, but the way you become one country is you stop acting like a country that’s divided into different buckets and bases of people.”

It’s a pity that so much of the discussion about voting this fall will be drenched in race. Americans have two important rights when it comes to voting. The first is the right to vote without fear and intimidation, for which this country fought an epic civil-rights struggle in the 1960s. Those gains in voter access must be preserved. But Americans also have a right to vote without their ballots’ being canceled out by people who are voting twice, are voting for the dead or nonexistent, or are non-citizens. We can and should accomplish two goals in the 2012 election — making sure it is easy to vote, and making sure it is hard to cheat. Groups such as True the Vote will be essential to make sure both sides of that imperative are fulfilled.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297461/reality-voter-fraud-john-fund

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Gender Pay Gap Inaccuracies




By Rich Lowry – May 1, 2012

Archimedes didn’t say, “Give me a bad statistic, and I will move the Earth.” But that was only because the ancient Greek mathematician wasn’t familiar with the ways of Washington.

An entire movement has grown up around the factoid that American women make about 80 percent of the pay of men. It is a reliable talking point of Democrats who insist the country is racked by a “War on Women.” A raft of proposed legislation purports to remedy the discrimination exposed by the damning number. It is the only bad statistic with a day devoted to it, “Equal Pay Day,” which falls in April to signify how much longer women have to work into the New Year to make what men earned in the previous year. Tradition says that the day must be marked with wailing and gnashing of teeth, and lots of press releases from advocacy organizations.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow recently wielded the statistic on Meet the Press, and reacted with shocked disbelief that anyone would question such a cold, hard fact, as if it were as incontestable as the circumference of the Earth.

Never mind that the figure is crude and misleading. The latest data from the Labor Department say that women made 82.2 percent of what men made in the first quarter of 2012. That’s a considerable gap, but comparing all women versus all men is not particularly telling when all sorts of variables — occupation, levels of experience, education, hours worked — are in play.

“Women gravitate,” Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum writes, “toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women — not all, but enough to have a big impact on statistics — trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.”

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a feminist outfit obsessed with the wage gap, published a study noting that twice as many women as men work in jobs with median earnings below the federal poverty line for a family of four. Unless all these women — some 5.5 million — were coerced into these positions, this fact alone shows how occupational choice influences the wage gap.

The slogan that invariably accompanies the 80 percent statistic is “equal pay for equal work.” But men and women get paid differently for different work. Warren Farrell points out in his book Why Men Earn More that the 25 worst jobs in terms of stress and physical demands — occupations such as sheet-metal worker and firefighter — are more than 90 percent male. In general, men who are employed full-time work more hours a day than women employed full-time (8.2 hours compared with 7.8, according to the Labor Department), and women are much more likely to interrupt their careers to have children, affecting their earning power over time.

All that notwithstanding, it is a strange time in history for self-appointed advocates for women to feel oppressed on their behalf. They must have missed the growing literature on “The End of Men” and similar themes. Women earn about 60 percent of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and are reaching parity with men in medical and law schools. Their attitudes to work are changing. In a historic reversal, more young women ages 18 to 34 (66 percent) than young men (59 percent) say high-paying work is one of the most important things or very important, according to a new Pew survey.

In light of all this, it stands to reason that the wage gap will narrow, even if it doesn’t disappear. A study by a research organization called Reach Advisors shows that single women in their 20s make 105 percent of what single men in their 20s make in urban areas, and 120 percent “in certain cities with a heavily knowledge-driven employment base.” These women must not realize that they will never make their way in the workplace without Congress somehow acting to ensure “equal pay.” 

In the end, the reality doesn’t matter. A bad statistic never dies. 


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297356/left-s-favorite-bad-statistic-rich-lowry