Obama is secretly preparing laws that will allow international organizations to search citizen's personal computers without any kind of warrant for "national security concerns", reports Russia Today.
Sounds familiar? Well it's not like the Patriot act. They will be searching for copied music, movies, and games.
That's right. Copyright issues are no longer a civil court issue. If you donate enough money to Obama, the government is now there to protect you. The constitution? What's that?
Thank your Hollywood President! The $246 million bailout wasn't enough I guess for getting him elected.
UPDATE: Here Obama refuses a Freedom of Information Act request, calling the secret copyright laws a matter of "national security."
President Obama has announced the adoption of electronic medical records for his healthcare plan, in the name of scientific evidence. He claimed the national use of such a system would safeguard against medical errors, reduce malpractice lawsuits, facilitate care and save $80 billion per year. How did he get that figure? The president was basing his argument on a faulty 2005 study by RAND (funded by companies such as Hewlett-Packard who would financially benefit from an electronic system). Unfortunately, when telling the America people, he left out several crucial points noted within the report: RAND policy analysts readily admit that there is no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Since the RAND study, much evidence has come forth to prove to prove just the opposite: electronic records have actually increased the number of medical errors.
As far as Obama’s claim that electronic records would reduce malpractice suits, the reality is that malpractice suits usually result from diagnostic errors and due care, rather than technical mistakes such as medication errors. And there is no evidence that electronic systems will reduce diagnostic errors. If fact, most studies prove that electronic systems increased the number of wrong and redundant diagnosis.
As a doctor, I know very well that our healthcare system is seriously flawed and far too weighty economically. However, much of the issue is due to expensive new treatments, insurance billing costs, and uninsured visits to the ER. I’d like to see the president address these with some truthful solutions that could actually work.
VIDEO: British Parlament member stands up against irresponsible spending: Hello American congressmen! Where are you?
One member of the British Parliament gives the Prime Minister a tongue lashing for spending his country into huge debts and recession, while all the while preaching the opposite of what he is doing. Why can't we get anyone in our congress to stand up against Obama's multi-trillion dollar spending spree that is crippling our economy and bankrupting our children for generations? Hello congressmen? Remember, you work for us!
As Nancy Pelosi prepares to introduce government run healthcare, Americans must start thinking about where we could be headed if this goes through. Not only will it be the number one government imposed financial burden upon families in the future, our health could be put in jeopardy.
Just last week, actress Natasha Richardson died in a tragic skiing accident in Quebec, Canada. Questions are being raised whether she could have been saved had her accident occurred in the U.S. instead of country under government healthcare. While no one can know for sure, here are some things to consider about the type of care she was given, or not given, in this case.
Medical reports indicate that she suffered from an intracranial bleed. This resulted in increased pressure against her brain that worsened each minute she did not have the surgery needed to relieve that pressure. Following her ski accident, because government officials denied paying for a medevac helicopter for the Quebec province (despite a population of 7.5 million), Richardson was driven 40 minutes to the hospital, only to wait there for 2 hours because they lacked the scanning equipment and a neurosurgeon was not available. She was then driven to Montreal for care, but it was too late.
The delays due to slow transport and insufficient diagnostic equipment and surgical options would be unlikely to happen within the US healthcare system. Canada's top head trauma doctor told the Associated Press that "Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States."
Eighteen-thousand police officers joined tens of thousands to mourn three Oakland police officers who were killed by a known parolee violator and suspected child-rapist. The man shot the officers from the sunroof of his car after being pulled over. The police rules of engagement prevented them from ordering the monster from his vehicle or from brandishing weapons.
This is the setting for Pelosi's comments, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
Yes she actually said that! She praised the fact that these police officers couldn't protect themselves from a known monster.
Of course the media hasn't reported the facts. AP won't report the size of the crowd at the funeral. AP won't report that DNA from a raped 12-year old girl was found to match the vermin. Everyone thinks the killer, Lavelle Mixon, was a misunderstood hero on the run from the law.
They actually praise the killer! A crowd of sixty marched on the streets and held vigils, claiming the slain officers committed "genocide." Savage Nation had clips of the protesters, who praised the killing of police and called Mixon innocent.
Pelosi has a 60% unfavorable rating.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Today the House of Representatives passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act by a vote of 321-105. The bill indicates that youth will be forced to participate in mandatory national service programs, for the communistic purpose of "service learning." This of course directly opposes the Thirteenth Amendment which protects us from involuntary servitude.
Heil Obama! If this isn't alarming enough, take a deeper look at how it restricts the youth's freedom of speech and freedom of religion:
"(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes...
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization."
Never once has gay marriage passed by a democratic vote of the people; every time it has been "legalized" by an activist court overstepping their powers and overruling the people, such as happened in California. This time, liberal politicians in Vermont are trying to legalize gay marriage by passing a bill in the legislature--the first time this has happened. We must let our public servants know that they must represent the will of the people that elected them, not their own agendas! From NOM:
If we don't act now, by the end of the week, Vermont could become the first state to adopt same-sex marriage legislatively -- without a court order hanging over their heads.
I need two things from you today. It'll only take about 5 minutes, but your action could make the difference for marriage, not just in Vermont, but in the nation. Once the floodgates open in Vermont, it will be easier for other state legislatures to follow suit.
We need to remind these legislators that their constituents are watching, and that they will be held accountable for their votes. We can't let them forget that 17 Vermont legislators lost their seats over civil unions in 2000. Urge them to adopt a proposed amendment sending the same-sex marriage bill to the people of Vermont for a vote. Tell them this is too important an issue to ramrod through in just a few days -- with no real public debate.
Here's where things stand: Despite our best efforts, the Vermont Senate passed Senate Bill 115 Monday night on a vote of 26-4. The vote sends the bill to the Vermont House, where the leadership is expected to try to push it through quickly -- a committee vote is likely within the next day or two and a vote of the full House may come before the end of the week.
While the Democratic leadership claims to have enough support to pass the bill, our efforts this week are critical. Working together, we can stop this, and at the same time put Vermont legislators on notice that the nation is watching, and that their constituents care about marriage. Even if the leadership succeeds in ramming the bill through this week, the margin of passage is critical. Governor Douglas opposes same-sex marriage, and is considering a veto. The House vote is certain to be closer than the Senate vote, and we need to keep the pressure on.
One legislator told the Burlington Free Press yesterday that he'd received 300 calls and emails about the same-sex marriage bill (an unheard-of number in Vermont!)-- and that supporters of same-sex marriage outnumbered opponents by a 2-1 margin! Let's correct the record, and make sure that every pro-marriage Vermonter contacts his or her legislators today!
Here's what I need you to do:
1. Contact the members of the Vermont House. If you live in Vermont, your action today is critical. Even if you've taken action before, please use this hyperlink to send a message to all 150 members of the Vermont House of Representatives, urging them to respect the voice of all Vermonters, and send this to the people for a vote -- not rush it through in just a few days.
Even if you don't live in Vermont, please send a message letting the Vermont House know that the nation is watching, and urging them to respect the voices of their constituents -- let the people vote!
2. Forward this message to every person you know in Vermont! Click here to send this email to five friends! We have three days to get every pro-marriage person in Vermont to contact their legislators, and we need your help!
Thank you for all you're doing to stand for marriage. The need is urgent, and we couldn't do it without your help.
First he turned against the voters he was sworn to protect and sought to overturn the constitutional amendment established by Proposition 8. He's still waging that battle.
Then corruption-ridden attorney general successfully legalized voter intimidation through the corrupt courts. After that he tried abolishing marriage completely. After all of this, he called for the Fairness Doctrine to silence his opponents in the media.
But he's not done yet! The man, who has no concept of what fundamental civil rights are, called on gay-rights protesters to seek to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
"He also told activists he thought public opinion in California was changing fast on acceptance of same-sex marriage rights, and noted that more states may pass legislation to allow it. "If that happens, you're getting pillars of support," he said.
The next step, he said, would be to try to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act so that marriages can gain federal support and recognition."
Repeal the Defense of Marriage act so that marriages can gain federal support and recognition. Yes, the Sacramento Bee actually said that.
Update: Turns out the guy behind this lawsuit, Charles LiMandri, represented the firefighters who were forced to walk in a lewd gay parade.
Round two for our right to be free from voter intimidation.
Liberals have asked me, “But you’re a doctor, why wouldn’t you want healthcare to be provided to everybody?” This is the reason:
If the government cannot provide comprehensive and efficient healthcare on a smaller scale i.e. Medicare or Medicaid, how can it provide sufficiently for every American? Take a look at government healthcare so far. Medicare is a broken system. It was bankrupt by 1972. Since then physicians who accept Medicare have had to face ever-worsening financial garnishment on reimbursements forcing many doctors to stop treating Medicare patients altogether.
Primarily, elderly patients are seeing restrictions on the amount of care they can receive and with the aging of the baby boomers, demand will increase and this is only going to get worse. Furthermore, the overwhelming financial expense of universal healthcare will eventually result in the some type of healthcare rationing. How is this possible? President Obama has already been laying down the framework for the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) council. This means that all your care is analyzed in a computer database to compare cost effectiveness against other types of care (I doubt my patients would like their medical history to be part of this national experiment). If at any point the computer says your care is too costly, the treatment options available to you will likely be diminished. You may even incur penalties if you engage in any sort of “risky” behavior such as overeating or riding a motorcycle.
The CER also involves bureaucrats influencing doctor’s decisions by initiating a process that can result in non-reimbursement for care. When this happens, and reimbursement doesn’t match the effort or quality care that a doctor gives, there is little incentive to provide better quality care. Obama warned that “physicians will have to tighten their belts”. If you want to know what that looks like, just ask the U.K. They drove many of their doctors, especially their dentists, to other countries where they could get reasonable reimbursement for their time and education. When doctors leave and fewer students go to medical school, the country is left with a provider shortage. This reduces timely, quality care and causes further rationing, which also drives up the cost of getting drugs (especially expensive ones like those for cancer). This has already been seen in other countries. Here is a couple examples of what the UK and Canada have to say about their socialized medicine. Click here for hundreds of examples.
The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
Hope and Mcdermott, August 26, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)]
Couples Face an IVF Postcode Lottery
- Katherine Fenech, August 6, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)]
Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
- April 29, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)]
Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
- David Rose, April 23, 2009 [Times Online]
Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
- Cathryn Atkinson, April 8, 2008 [Globe and Mail]
Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system
- March 27, 2008 [CTV.ca]
Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
- October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)]
The gay group Californians Against Hate (unless it's hate for Mormons) has published private memos between leaders in the church to make their case that the church covered up financial activities.
The group will file seven new charges against the church, which is already being investigated by the State because they dared stand up for traditional marriage with Proposition 8.
The leaked memos appear to be between General Authority Loren Dunn and other top leaders of the church. My guess is they were leaked or stolen from the office of the current North America Central Area, Steven E. Snow. Dunn is deceased. But then it is strange that the most recent memo is from January 1998.
The fact that the memos date back from 1995 to 1998 and involve a man who died years ago begs the obvious question: what does all this have to do with Proposition 8? Californians "Against" Hate claim the documents "show just how the Church operates and they illuminate the replication of the strategy in California in creating NOM to qualify and pass Proposition 8." No evidence is provided that has anything to do with NOM or Proposition 8.
The group claims: "The Mormon Church appears to have created the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the summer of 2007 to qualify California’s Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot." The site gives us a chart of supposed Board of Directors for NOM, conveniently putting the Mormons first. Only three out of ten in the supposed Board are Mormon leaders, and only two of those for the church .(The site won't admit that of course). Ridiculous?
It gets better. The first man listed on the NOM Board, the "Grand Strategist of Mormon Fight Against Same-sex Marriage" (Gordon B. Hinckley) died back in January 2008. The gay group must not know that, because they maintain that "All of these Board members are very interconnected. They all serve on each others Boards..."
Quickly looking through the leaked documents, I don't see anything that would indicate illegal behavior anyway. The group claims they illustrate that "nearly all of [the church's] activities are intended to be highly secretive." Again, no evidence to back this up. The church has divulged everything according the law. They claim the church has a "veil of secrecy" in their "national crusade." IndyBay goes even further, claiming this shows an "illegal campaign" They offer this story as evidence that the "LDS Church failed to report the full extent of its financial involvement last year."
Again, these memos were highly private, from one church leader to another. Is anything safe from these people? How did they get them? Are they legitamite? False allegations and flagrant claims against a private organization with nothing to back them up... Is that libel?
Why is Obama destroying our nation's financial systems? Could it be that he is trying to create absolute chaos so that he can assert totalitarian rule? Could it be that he is following through on all those plans that he made in plain sight but we all ignored and elected him because he is Black? Look at the history of China, Russia, Italy, France, Cuba, Vietnam and Germany and you will see startling similarities to what is happening today just before a totalitarian dictator seized power.
video link from Glenn Beck
I've been telling you for weeks to not be distracted by the "big news of the day" because it's usually just a smokescreen. But on Wednesday, I fell for it myself.
While everyone — including me — was taking sides on the AIG bonuses, something much more important was happening: The Fed announced it will pump a $1 trillion into the system by buying debt from our treasury.
Since they've lowered interest rates as far as they can, this is really a last ditch effort; it's like they put our entire economy up on the roulette table and the wheel is spinning.
To put this in perspective, think of America like a sick patient with a nasty staph infection. The doctors first try Penicillin to cure the patient. When that doesn't work, they try something else. And when all else fails they hook an IV to the patient.
That last line of defense was just hung over "patient America" yesterday, but we were all
— and that includes me — too focused on AIG to notice.
Here's what this means: We're borrowing money from ourselves to pay for programs we can't pay for.
And that's why the price of gold shot up about 75 bucks in 18 hours. Investors aren't stupid. They know the risks this poses, especially to inflation and our dollar.
So let me play doctor here and give you the diagnosis without talking to you like a 4-year-old: The antibiotic we've just been given has never once worked in the history of the civilized world.
Can this time be different? Absolutely, but only if we've got the guts to make some life-changing decisions; decisions that will force us to shoulder some unthinkable pain in the short term, but decisions that may just save this patient's life.
A leaked memo shows that the ironically named Californians Against Hate:
"...accuses the church of creating the National Organization for Marriage in California as early as summer 2007 as a front group for its agenda, while failing to report the costs as required by California law.
The amended complaint also adds six other charges that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints delayed disclosure or vastly underreported other nonmonetary contributions to the campaign, including the costs of compensated staff time for senior church officials...
''The church did not establish the National Organization for Marriage,'' LDS spokesman Scott Trotter said, adding that the church has disclosed its entire contribution to the pro-Proposition 8 effort. Karger, said Trotter, ''is entitled to his opinion but not to his own version of the facts.''
The head of the National Organization for Marriage bristled at the new charges, describing the group as a multifaith coalition and calling the allegation it was a LDS Church front group "outlandish.''...
Roman Porter, the commission's executive director, confirmed Wednesday the probe "remains active,'' but declined further comment."
source: Salt Lake Tribune
Mainstream Media Ignores Massive "Tea Party" Protests Against Taxes, Out of Control "Stimulus" Spending
There is a strong conservative movement gaining momentum, with networking and protests froming throughout the country. Though the media may ignore it for now, soon it will be too loud to simply ignore. Normal, every-day citizens are fed up with the ridiculous actions of a congress that passes massive spending bills without ever reading them and betrayed by a president that is boldly pushing our country towards socialism and communism/totalitarianism. Make your voice heard! Take back your government!
As Obama continues to unveil his nationalized healthcare plan, doctors and patients across America are getting concerned that we are going to end up like the UK, Canada, or Australia. Here is a small taste of their experience with socialized medicine (and I’ve seen hundreds more articles just like this):
Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]
Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
- October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)]
Grads fail to slow doctor shortage
- Jennifer O'Brien, May 21, 2005 [London Free Press]
Hundreds on waiting list as hospital pleads for help
- August 23, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
Women in labour turned away by maternity units
- John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
Dental patients face care lottery
- March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)].
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, August 24, 2008 [The Times])
The Department of Health and Human Services has given the public until April 10th to comment on their efforts to “rescind in its entirety” Bush's regulation, that doctor's could refuse certain services such as abortions based on personal convictions.
This will force doctors to kill unborn children as requested.
Go to www.regulations.gov and enter 0991-AB49 in the search box to comment. Or send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Or by mail, three copies of your comments mail, to Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Recission Proposal Comments, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Ave., SW, Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201.
Also sign the petition here!
U.S. fertility rates are higher among all races, especially Hispanics. That's good. And abortions are down. That would seem to indicate that women are birthing children that they would otherwise abort. This is true, especially considering a spike in single mothers.Thank Bristol Palin.
Conservative Utah has the highest birth rate.
Still, this illustrates a pervasive destruction of the family. At this rate half of all children will be born to single mothers in 2015. It's also bad for our economy: half of unwed teen mothers go on welfare and most stay on welfare for at least five years.
Jenks Journal reports that not only does Pepsi donate heavily to overturn Proposition 8 and the democratic rights of the people:
- Pepsi gave a total of $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace.
- Pepsi requires employees to attend sexual orientation and gender diversity training where the employees are taught to accept homosexuality.
- Pepsi is a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
Pepsi also sponsers Family Guy. In a recent episode, Family Guy portrayed a baby eating horse semen, taught the homosexuality is a matter of genetics not choice, claimed Ronald Reagan was a closet gay, and taught that a "man's role" is to punch and fart in the faces of women.
They reversed their decision, but that didn't stop the militant liberal ACLU from suing them for "permitting and sanctioning an atmosphere that is hostile to female, lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender students."
You can't even cancel a school event even more, if it is pro-liberal!
Obama has already given ACORN, who broke voting laws to get Obama elected, plenty of payback. That $2 million from the bank bailouts didn't hurt. But now he needs their fraudulent services more than ever.
Ever since the White House unconstitutionally took control of the census, they've been premeditating how to bend things to Democrats' favor. ACORN> can help with that!
The 9-12 Revolution is gaining speed! Along with tea parties, we now have a modern-day Thomas Paine speaking Common Sense to the nation, which of course, we here at Good Sense Politics are grateful to see. The only thing Obama has accomplished in office is spending money--money that our descendants will be paying off with interest for generations to come. His policies, crony appointments and thugs in Congress are all incompetent and their lack of common sense may destroy our country.
Orson Scott Card says we should just ignore them and they'll go away. The church itself says it "does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series."
But what if they go too far in hatefully attacking those who dare defend traditional marriage?
It started when TV Guide published images of the sacred temple garment, as they promoted the hateful Big Love show. Yesterday HBO aired the sacred Priesthood handshake, the passage through the temple veil, and other parts of the most sacred and confidential part of the Mormon religion.
The Tribune says it was thrown in there, that it had nothing to do with the plot. The Tribune spins their report by concentrating on cultish Fundamentalists, however, hoping that "more people do watch the show and realize that all Americans (including polygamists) should be granted equal civil rights."
CBS defended HBO. Is it just coincidence that CBS and HBO's owner Time Warner have recently joined together in their deals? CBS said HBO just wanted to "create accuracy" as they portray "family and faith."
The producers of the show also said "we knew we had a responsibility to be completely accurate and to show the ceremony in the proper context and with respect." Uhh, since when are polygamists allowed into the Mormon temple??
Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project has taken its homepage from unknown to maximum capacity, crashing servers there and at Foxnews in just a few minutes. The 9/12 project is about giving a voice to the "good people" of America who follow the rules, don't live on unnecessary credit and have had enough with the bailouts of Wallstreet millionaires and disingenuous people who bought more house than they could afford and want us to pay their morgage now. It is about returning to the values that made our nation great:
1. America is good.Please watch the videos below and visit the site and "unite or die!" We WILL take back our country!
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
9. Hard Work
11. Personal Responsibility
(See video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9P4RhiFyP4&e)
The Bilerico Project says:
"But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.
The time for saying "please" is over.
A bad decision would likely inflame the heightened level of violence already recorded against the LGBT community over the past year."
They link to Day of Decision which seeks to organize quick and massive street demonstrations if the Courts uphold the voter approved constitutional amendment, saying "We must go back to the streets."
As evidence of their efficacy, the site, which is run by Jewish lesbian Robin Tyler, remind us how they silenced the voices of Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Rush Limbaugh from certain radio stations.
We can expect Margaret Hamburg, Obama's pick for FDA chief, to be associated with the Center For American Progress. That's just standard for Obama.
She's a member of the American Association of the Advancement of Science which pushes for embryonic stem cell research and pushes the global warming lie. She's on the Intelligent Science Board, which strongly opposes any "pain" or "harsh techniques" when interrogating terrorists. And for all you Zeitgeist fans, she's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and sits on the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation.
This man is the biggest clown I've ever seen.
The man's career is built on corruption. His assault on marriage started with attacks on the voter approved constitutional ammendment, which it is his job to protect. Then he successfully blocked attempts to shield voters from harassment. Then he called for the Fairness Doctrine to silence opponents.
Now just days after giving opening arguments in opposition to voter-approved Proposition 8 he has submitted the official title and summary for a measure that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely. Which would also undo Prop-8.
Of course the GOP should be careful after choosing the liberal disaster McCain. But we also need to bounce back aggressively.
Romney recently won the CPAC straw poll for 2012, he leads Intrade... Can't we get past the bickering over phantom flip-flops and tying dogs to the roof of cars? The Globe says Huck and the rest are children compared to him. Hotair seems to agree.
What the problem is?
TODAY the Senate is voting on yet another massive spending bill -- the $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill that contains more than 2,900 pages!
Worse yet, the bill is laden with 8,500 pork-filled earmarks totaling more than $7.7 billion including:
--$1.8 million for pig odor and manure management
--$200,000 for a "tattoo-removal violence-outreach program" in Los Angeles
--$1.9 million for a water taxi service in Connecticut (this is actually being called the taxi to nowhere)
--$473,000 for National Council of La Raza (which has supported radical Mexican nationalism within our borders)
Just as bad, the bill does not require competitive bids -- which will lead to corruption and insider deals for our tax dollars! Well-connected friends of members of Congress and the lobbyists will get the contracts without even having to compete for them!
President Obama who once pledged to go line-by-line to remove wasteful spending, now says it s too late to purge the pork from the spending bill. Well, he is wrong!
The Senate did not have the votes to pass the bill last Thursday and now some Democrats are saying they will oppose this pork-laden version of the Omnibus Spending bill...
One thing is for certain--the vote will be very close!
Eighty years ago the Supreme Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).Thirty years ago the Court continued this line of reasoning with the pronouncement that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).Yet in 2000, when the State of Washington gave any person the ability to override a good parent’s decision about visitation by simply claiming that it would be “best” for children to allow the third-party to have visitation rights, in the Supreme Court:· There were six separate opinions and none reached a five-vote majority· Justice Thomas was the only Justice to clearly state that parental rights receive the same high legal standard of protection as other fundamental rights· Justice Scalia held that parents have no constitutionally protected rights whatsoeverSupport for a high-view of parental rights has been seriously undermined by the current Court.As a consequence, numerous lower federal courts refuse to treat parental rights as deserving of protection as a fundamental right.At the same time, America is poised to adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. President Obama supports this treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a leading advocate of this treaty for over twenty years. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has “promised” that this treaty will be ratified during this term of Congress.If this treaty is ratified:· The laws of all 50 states on children and parents would be superseded by this international law by virtue of a specific provision of the US Constitution which expressly declares treaties to be supreme over state law. Virtually all law on children and parents is state law.· Good parents would no longer be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children. Instead, the government would have the authority to overrule all parents on any decision concerning the child if the government believed it could make a better decision.· Parents could no longer spank their children.· Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.· America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs.The only kind of law that can override a treaty is the Constitution of the United States. State laws or state constitutions cannot override treaties. There is no guarantee that federal statutes could override treaties—moreover, we enter a binding legal promise to obey a treaty when we ratify it. America should not promise to obey a treaty and then claim it is appropriate to obey the treaty only when we want to. America of all nations must respect the rule of law.There is only one possible solution for the eroding support for parental rights in the Supreme Court that can also stop the encroachment of international law.We need to place the time-honored test of parental rights, as recognized by the Supreme Court for over seventy years, into the explicit text of the Constitution.We cannot wait until our rights are formally demolished. We must act now to stop international law and protect these two key principles:· Fit parents should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.· American legislators, not international tribunals, should make the public policy for America on families and children.
It has been obvious from the beginning: the LBGT community is as interested in marriage as the woman trying to steal the baby in court before King Solomon. They also would much rather "cut the baby in half" than not get their way. Now they are suggesting the "compromise" that since they can't have marriage the way they want it, no one should be able to get married. Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Direct the state to employ non-marriage terminology for all couples - be it civil union or some equivalent. While new terminology for all may at first seem awkward - mostly in greeting card shops - the third step dovetails with the court's important responsibility to reaffirm the unfettered freedom of all faiths to extend the nomenclature of marriage as their traditions allow.
This bit of satire from Self Evident Truths:
I met up with Ron Clouster at Jillian's, a local club in the upscale center of the city. He sat at a high table, near the entrance and well away from the bar and the noise. He swirled his drink, remaining aloof to the milling crowd around him and the constant dull beat of dance music. He was surprisingly short, about five foot six or seven. He wore a plain white t-shirt which stretched tight across his shoulders and upper arms, showing off well defined muscles. He motioned for me to sit.
"So, what's this about?" I asked, stepping up into the over-tall chair.
Ron looked at me for a moment, perhaps unsure of my motives in agreeing to meet with him for an interview. Ron Clouster is a key spokesperson for the gay activist group Blind Justice United.
After an uncomfortable minute, he spoke. "We're going to broaden the number of groups included as part of the community," he said. Ron referred to the gay community.
"Broaden? How?" I asked. I find short and open questions best for interviews. It allows me to gain information, even from people as openly hostile as Ron.
"Well, you're familiar with the term LGBT?"
"Yes, of course."
"We don't want anyone to feel left out. There are many other groups which need to be part of this," he gestured around with his arm, pointing to the surrounding club. "They need to belong and join in the fight to gain their civil rights."
"Who's this 'they' you refer to?" I inquired.
He started to warm up to the topic. "Well, we need to be sure to add queers into the group - LGBTQ, you know?"
"Yes," I said, "queer or questioning."
"That's right. It means both. So we want to add two Qs to the end - LGBTQQ."
"Yes," he said. "We don't want either group to get lost in the shuffle and get ignored by the courts."
"Well, and also we would like to include Two-Spirit people."
"Two-Spirit?" I asked.
"Yes," he nodded. His voice grew stronger and he became more self-assured with each new group. "Native American gays decided back in the 90s that the traditional idea of Two-Spirit referred to them. That is, that there are some people who are born with two spirits, a male and a female." He stopped to get my reaction for a moment. I merely nodded at him to continue.
"Anyway, Two-Spirit people have been recognized by Native Americans for years, so we want to include them as well."
"And that would mean...."
"LGBTQQTS," Ron replied.
"At our last meeting of the BJU, we realized that we were ignoring whole groups of people who should become part of the community. For example, there are a whole range of folks who are into kink."
"Yeah, it's amazing." He nodded to emphasize the point. "We thought about how to add that group into the community and decided that kink was a generic enough term, but to be on the safe side, we also included people who are dominant as well as those who are submissive."
"So now your group is called..."
"LGBTQQTSKDS!" Ron was getting pretty excited about his topic and rushed on. "The next group was a difficult decision for BJU. We had to determine if polygamy would be accepted in the community."
"Polygamy?" I raised my eyebrows. "I thought you didn't like polygamists?"
"Not at all" he said. "It's not the polygamy part, it's those evil Mormons who are trying to take away our rights. Once we realized, though, that Mormons, I mean those folks in Utah, have not really been associated with polygamy for over a hundred years, it was time to include that lifestyle with our own."
"Polygamy. Really." I shook my head.
"Yeah! Well, we don't want to be sexists, so we're including both polygyny and polyandry. Women who want more than one husband ought to have that right."
"So now your group is called...?"
"Is that everyone?" I asked.
"Well, no. We had one guy in our group that insisted we include gays who are celibate, so we added GBC to the end of the acronym." He looked at me expectantly.
I thought for a minute before venturing with, "LGBTQQTSKDSPPGBC?"
"That's it!" he exclaimed. "You've got the idea."
"Are there any other groups you missed?"
"We thought of several others in our last BJU meeting," he said, "but we didn't want to go too far with our first revision."
"Yes, that sounds reasonable," I ventured. A pause. "What about Monogamous Married People?"
He became visibly upset that I would mention the MMP and started to shout. "After what those people did to us with Proposition 8? Those haters kept us from our civil rights!" Ron stood up, wildly gesturing. "Why would we want to include them? There's no room in the world for such hateful people!"
"OK. OK," I held up my hands to fend off his outburst. "I was just wondering." Ron slowly sat down. We remained in silence for a second or two while Ron regained his composure. I broke the silence first. "Where do you go from here?"
He hesitated a moment longer, testing me, then replied, "all people are equal under the law and should enjoy the protection of the law. We need to let people know that we are what we are. We're starting law suits in both California and Massachusetts as test cases to remove any legal barriers against LGBTQQTSKDSPPGBC."
We only talked for a moment longer about the BJU strategy, until Ron indicated that he had to rush off to his next interview. I thanked him for his time and we stood and shook hands. I wished him luck and he thanked me for my time.
As he started for the door, I called after him. "What about hermaphrodites?"
He stood for a moment, snapped his fingers, grinned and waved as he walked out the door.
I await the update to the BJU website to announce to the world the new LGBTQQTSKDSPPGBCH community. After all, protected class status really shouldn't exclude anyone. At least not according to Ron and the Blind Justice United.
From United Families Utah:
Because we believe that every stage of human life from the moment of conception to natural death is entitled to protection under the law, we ask for your support of House Bill 222, the “Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act”.
This bill would require a Utah physician performing an abortion to inform a woman more than 20 weeks along that the fetus may feel pain, and offer her an anesthetic or analgesic to alleviate the fetus’ pain before the abortion is performed. Helping a woman make a more informed decision could affect both her life and the life of her unborn child forever!
Please contact your Senator and ask them to VOTE IN FAVOR of HB222, the “Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act” bill.
- Utah is not breaking new legal ground with this bill. Several other states have similar laws (Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Oklahoma). In addition, abortion counseling materials in Alaska, South Dakota and Texas mention fetal pain.
- Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue stated, “The Woman’s Right to Know is a common-sense approach to a sensitive issue. It gives us the proper respect and value for all life”.
- The Oklahoma law (in addition to offering fetal pain information) also gives the woman “the option of seeing a sonogram of her fetus prior to undergoing an abortion.”
- The Louisiana law requires a brochure be given to the mother explaining, “…Anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children who are 20 weeks’ gestational age or older who undergo prenatal surgery.”
- Renowned pediatrician Dr. “Sunny” Anand reported to the US District Court in California, “Between weeks 20 and 30, an unborn child has more pain receptors per square inch than at any other time, before or after birth, with only a very thin layer of skin for protection.”
- Noted Canadian physician Dr. Will Johnston stated, “Measuring pain response in the fetus is not easy. They can’t self-report, just as babies can’t. But by every measure possible—facial grimace, withdrawal, release of stress hormones, change in pulse rate, breathing, & blood pressure—they behave as we would. And as Dr. Anand has said, ‘In the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane’.”
- Utah offers a sedative drug to condemned inmates before they are put to death. We should do at least the same for an unborn child.
I found a very good argument in favor of retaining traditional marriage from an unlikely place, Orson Scott Card's Shadow Puppets:
You are lonely and humans are not designed to be alone. It’s in our genes. We’re social beings. Even the most introverted person alive is constantly hungry for human association. You are no exception, Bean.
Let me tell you what I know, not as a scientist, but my life as a man. I have always been as lonely as you. Never as intelligent, but not a fool either. I followed my mind into my work, and let it be my life. I was content with that, partly because I was so successful that my work brought great satisfaction, and partly because I was of a disposition not to look upon women with desire. In that era, of my youth, the governments of most countries were actively encouraging those of us whose mating had been short-circuited to indulge those desires and take no mate, have no children. Part of the effort to funnel all of human endeavor into the great struggle with the alien enemy. So it was almost patriotic of myself in fleeting affairs that meant nothing, that led nowhere. Where could they lead?
I tell you this so you understand that I know something of loneliness, too. Because all of a sudden my work was taken away from me. From my mind, not just from my daily activities. I could not even think about it. And I quickly discovered that my friendships were not . . . transcendent. They were all tied to my work, and when my work went away, so did these friends. They were not unkind, they still inquired after me, they made overtures, but there was nothing to say, our minds and hearts did not really touch at any point. I discovered that I did not know anybody, and nobody knew me.
When a man‘s life is bent so that his desire is not toward women, it does not change his longing for meaning in his life. A man searches for something that will outlast his life. For immortality of a kind. For a way to change the world, to have his life matter. But it is all in vain. I was swept away until I existed only in footnotes in other men’s articles.
Here is the meaning of life: for a man to find a woman, for a woman to find a man, the creature most unlike you, and then to make babies with her, with him, or to find them some other way, but then to raise them up, and watch them do the same thing, generation after generation, so that when you die you know you are permanently a part of the great web of life. That you are not a loose thread, snipped off.
Shallow as it had to be, it is still the truest thing I ever found. Even men who do not desire women, even women who do not desire men, this does not exempt them from the deepest desire of all, the desire to be an inextricable part of the human race. It’s hardwired into all of us. Not just sexual desire—that can be twisted any which way, and it often is. And not just a desire to have children, because many people never get that, and yet they can still be woven into the fabric. No, it’s a deep hunger to find a person from that strange, terrifyingly other sex and make a life together. Even old people beyond mating, even people who know they can’t have children, there’s still a hunger for this. For actual marriage, two unlike creatures becoming, as best they can, one.
I’m not talking about politics or hurt feelings. I’m talking about a trait that the human race absolutely needed to succeed. The thing that makes us neither herd animals nor solitaries, but something in between. The thing that makes us civilized or at least civilizable. And those who are cut off from it by their own desires, by those twists and bends that turn them in another way—those who are cut off because they think they want to be cut off, they are still hungry for it, hungrier than ever, especially if they deny it. It makes them angry, bitter, sad, and they don’t know why, or if they know, they can’t bear to face the knowledge.
If you leave this world without your children in it, without having made that bond with such an alien creature as a woman, then your life will have meant nothing to you, and you’ll die in bitterness and alone.
The woman I’m going to marry is a good woman, a kind one. With small children who have no father. I have a pension now—a generous one—and with my help these children will have a home. My proclivities have not changed, but she is still young enough, and perhaps we will find a way for her to bear a child that is truly my own. But if not, then I will adopt her children into my heart. I will rejoin the web. My loose thread will be woven in, knotted to the human race. I will not die alone.
"Once again, the people of California have had their day in court regarding the safeguarding of traditional marriage. Now the fate of Proposition 8 rests with the seven justices on the state Supreme Court. As a California voter, I hope the court will uphold the sanctity of our state law and the democratic process by ruling Proposition 8 a valid amendment to our state constitution. To rule otherwise would turn our government system on its head and make a mockery of the people's ability to amend our constitution.
"Proposition 8 was a valid amendment to our state constitution, simply placing proposition 22's 14-word definition of traditional marriage into the constitution. Opponents argue Proposition 8 was a revision to our constitution and therefore was illegally placed on the ballot. However, a revision is a fundamental change to the structure of our entire government system. Asking the people to place into our state constitution the historic definition of marriage does not reach the level of 'revising' our form of government. In fact, redefining the institution of marriage to include anything more than one man and one woman is a substantial change to our social order.
"During the court's hearing today Justice Joyce Kennard asked some very important questions that speak to the issue of whether the people have the right to change our constitution. She made a clear distinction between the court's overturning of Proposition 22 and the current case. While the court previously ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional, now the court must consider what constitutes a revision and an amendment to the constitution.
"Kenneth Starr did a brilliant job articulating the case for Proposition 8's constitutionality. His gracious, intelligent presentation was by far the strongest case presented to the court. I cannot praise him highly enough for his outstanding representation of our case.
"At this point, we ask every Californian to pray for the seven justices as they prepare their decision in this pivotal case. Pray for their wisdom and that they will render a decision that honors the rule of law and the will of the people.
-Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute
Complete Video of Prop 8 Oral Arguments (proceeded by a video intro to the CA Supreme Court)
Prop 8 Oral Arguments: Reactions (blog entry)
Glenn Beck on Prop 8 (video)
Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!
Why is it important that Prop 8 not be overturned?
1. To Protect our Democracy: The People rule the government in America, not vice-versa!
Prop 8 was written to protect the will of the people of California from being overruled by a handful of politicians in Sacramento and San Francisco. Twice now the people have clearly voted that they want marriage to remain as it has always been, and now once again our government is going to nullify our vote. Allowing four activist judges to overrule the decision of the entire state brings us back to the days of the tyrannies of King George before the Revolution. We live in America and here the people decide their laws. If the people of California want to change the institution of marriage let them so vote in a legal election!
2. To Protect our Civil and Religious Rights: It is not a hate crime to oppose homosexuality!
Our country was founded to be a safe-haven where all men and women could say and practice what they believe without persecution. Americans have fought and died to protect these fundamental freedoms of speech and religious worship. In recent years, however, homosexuals have pressured individuals, private organizations and churches to accept their actions, labeling those who oppose on moral and religious ground as “narrow-minded,” “homophobic” and “bigoted.” Already homosexuals have successfully sued a private photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a lesbian wedding, a New Jersey church that refused to allow gay couple to be married on their property, a gynecologist in California for referring the in vitro fertilization of a lesbian to an associate due to religious beliefs and the Boy Scouts in Berkeley, Calif. for excluding gay men. A Boston Catholic adoption service was forced to close rather than be required to adopt to gay couples and the Christian dating site eHarmony.com was forced to provide dating services for gay and transsexual individuals. Already religious leaders have been prosecuted for making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality—even reading straight out of the Bible!—and the tax-exempt status of their churches threatened. The names of individuals who donated money in support of Prop 8 were listed on websites by the LA Times, SF Chronicle and Google with encouragement to harass them; several revealed donors were consequently dismissed from their jobs for their support for traditional marriage. There is no place in America for silencing religious belief or coercing people and organizations to support a behavior that goes against their conscience!
3. To Protect Parental Rights: Kids should not be taught in public schools that homosexuality is okay.
At a young, impressionable age it is especially important that our children be taught correct principles and morals. Since California law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage (Education Code §51890), when Prop 8 is overturned teachers will be required to contradict the moral convictions of the majority of the parents and teach our children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional man-woman marriage and that homosexuality is healthy and normal. When one Massachusetts couple tried to prevent their child from being indoctrinated with homosexual teachings in a public school, they were told by the Court of Appeals that because their state recognized gay marriage they did not have a right to opt their children out it. One 8th grade science teacher in Massachusetts proudly told NPR that she now teaches her classes how to use sex toys and in San Francisco a first grade class went on a field trip to watch a lesbian wedding. It is wrong for our state to teach our children morals that we don’t agree with behind our backs.
4. To Protect our Society and Children: Stable Families = Well-Raised Children = Stable Society
The entire history of mankind offers proof that children are best raised in a stable family of a woman and man who commit to come together for life to support and nurture them. Marriage was created to promote and support this ideal family arrangement. With the increase of children born or raised outside of this ideal, especially those abused or neglected by unfit parents, it is more important than ever that the ideal child-raising situation be honored and protected. A Dutch study concluded that gay couples cannot provide a stable child-raising situation, noting that the average homosexual relationship lasts 1.5 years and even “committed” homosexual couples average eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year. By diluting marriage to include any relationship desired, we will seriously undermine its meaning and value; hence, our society and children will suffer.
5. Gay "Marriage" Is NOT About “Love” or “Civil Rights”: It is about forcing approval of homosexuality
Homosexuals defend their intimidation and undemocratic actions by claiming that their “civil rights” are being violated when they are not allowed to “follow their hearts” and have their relationships recognized by all as marriage. In reality, however, gays already have every right that heterosexuals do: They can marry or remain single, and they can engage in any kind of relationship or activity they desire, so long as it is legal. California has even created “civil unions” as an alternative for committed same-sex couples to “have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses.” (California Family Code §297.5) There is no restriction whatsoever on a gay couple’s ability to love or practice sexual relations with their partner. But homosexuals are not satisfied with mere tolerance or equal rights: their agenda is to force everyone to approve of their actions. Homosexuals do not have the right to take away everyone else’s rights by forcing them to change their definition of the fundamental unit of society to include same-sex relationships. Already polygamists and pedophiles have begun to cite gay marriage laws as legal justification for their actions. To be able to force everyone to recognize anything you want to be marriage is not a civil right!
Marriage is not a vehicle for social recognition of morally taboo behaviors. It is a protected and honored arrangement designed to promote the raising of children in an ideal environment, the way nature intended. Prop 8 is not about denying rights to homosexuals: They retain every right that heterosexuals do . . . plus the right to a same-sex “civil union” that state law ensures is equal to marriage in all ways but name. They have no right to force the rest of society to change their moral convictions to fit their fancy. Twice, the people of California voted in fair elections for marriage to remain solely between a man and a woman. The government of California should abide by the democratic voice of its people and not tyrannically impose its will on them.
For more information visit: