Monthly Archives: February 2012

Following The Money In Environmentalism

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the war the Environmental Protection Agency is waging on coal-fired electric plants. The article includes the following quote from the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was:

On Thursday, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune admitted that between 2007 and 2010 the organization took $26 Million from Chesapeake Energy Corporation for the Sierra Club’s campaign against coal-fired electrical power plants. Chesapeake is one the nation’s largest producers of natural gas and extensively uses deep underground hydraulic fracturing “fracking” and sees its future in natural gas-fired power plants.

In making the announcement on the Sierra Club’s web site, Brune implied that it will be joining in the campaign against “fracking” for natural gas. No doubt, the leadership of Chesapeake Energy is elated to hear that the animal they fed so generously to use against their competitors may soon turn on them, probably using the same tactics it used against Chesapeake’s competitors in fuels to power electrical generation.

Follow the money. It is unfortunate that money is flowing and people and organizations are being used in ways that do not do anything to solve the energy problems of our country. The environmentalists are not any more righteous than the rest of us.

As I quoted in a previous article:

As the Forest Service used to say, the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer.

We all need to be aware of where our news on policy issues is coming from and who is paying for it!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Question Of Access

Posted on by

CBN News posted a story today about the ongoing battle some New York City churches are fighting to continue to meet in public schools. The New York Senate passed a bill yesterday to reverse the New York City school district’s ban on worship services inside its schools. Unless this bill quickly passes the House and is signed by the Governor, all New York City churches that meet in the city schools will be evicted after their February 12 services.

The article reports some of the discussion:

“It would open up the schools to anybody. It might include the Klu Klux Klan,” the New York Times quoted Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, Democrat of Manhattan.

But the bill’s supporters said the churches pose no threat and are beneficial to the community.

“The fact of the matter is these are real lives that these institutions are helping and saving,” said Sen. Malcolm A. Smith, D-Queens. “All they are saying is, ‘Give us the opportunity to help.'”

I belong to a church that has met in schools at various times. Allowing a church to meet in a school generates income for the school. It also provides an opportunity for school employees (janitors and sometimes kitchen help) to work overtime and earn extra income.

There was a time when churches were considered an asset to the community. We seem to have lost that sense. Churches provide guidance for youth, many of them sponsor food pantries, meals for the needy, various support groups, and other services that benefit the community. It benefits churches and the city to allow the churches to meet in the schools.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Reality Check For Baby Boomers

Posted on by

No, this is not a political article. NBC Washington posted a gallery of pictures of rock stars then and now. The gallery includes a lot of people we grew up with or our children grew up with–David Crosby, David Lee Roth, Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, etc. Follow the link and enjoy the memories (and if you are lucky, avoid the reality check)!

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Arrived In My Email Today

Posted on by

This billboard is currently up in the Kansas City area:

I intend to complicate the message with a few basic facts.

The billboard is sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim Brotherhood connected organization. Note the strategy—that opposition to sharia law is supposedly an infringement on the first amendment protection of religious freedom.

This is, of course, disingenuous. Is ICNA arguing that the following provisions of sharia law be protected by the first amendment?

A Muslim man beating his wife for disobedience.

Punishment, up to capital punishment, of “apostates”—those who leave Islam.

 Polygamy. (In 1879, the Supreme Court ruled that Mormon polygamy was not protected under the first amendment.)

Jihad.

Suppression of criticism of Islam or Muhammad. (This is particularly obnoxious, since the first amendment also protects freedom of speech.)

Punishment for the practice of homosexuality.

Somehow none of these practices seem to be mentioned by those encouraging Sharia Law. No one is telling Muslims that they cannot freely practice their religion. What we are telling them is that if they live in America, they should expect to live under American law. As a religion, they are not entitled to their own legal system–even in America.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does This Spending Represent Your Priorities ?

Posted on by

CBN News posted an article today listing some of the things that our government is currently spending money on. Remember, this is a time when we are borrowing one out of every four dollars we spend and Congress is saying that it is impossible to cut spending without seriously hurting certain sectors or our economy.

Please follow the link above to read all of the article, but here are a few highlights:

Like the $120 million for federal retirement benefits to retirees who are already dead. Patrick Knudsen, The Heritage Foundation’s senior federal budget expert, pointed showed CBN News a recent example.

“After a retiree had died, his son continued cashing his checks for 37 years. And it didn’t stop until 2008 when the son himself died,” he said.

…More federal funding in the amount of $593,000 went to a primate research center to study where in chimpanzees’ brains they get the idea to throw their feces.

…A Virginia university received $55,000 to study Jordanian students’ water pipe smoking habits.

…A new grant of $176,000 joined $350,000 already spent to study how cocaine hurts or helps the sex drive of Japanese quail.

Some other gems:

…A museum of magic received $147,000 to study the audiences of magic shows.

…More than $550,000 of U.S. taxes went to the production of a documentary on how rock bands contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire.

…A television production of a Pakistani version of PBS’ “Sesame Street” has already cost tax payers $10 million and $20 million more has already been budgeted.

…IPad 2s were purchased for $96,000 for students in Maine, where 96 percent of their parents said the cost wasn’t worth it.

…Nevada’s Western Folklife Center received $50,000 for cowboys and cowgirls to gather once a year to recite cowboy poetry.

Somehow, I think we can find some room for spending cuts in these programs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The First Qualification To Hold Office In America Ought To Be A Respect And Love For America

Posted on by

The Daily Caller reported today that Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a television interview that when the people of Egypt write their constitution they should not look to the U. S. Constitution as an inspiration. She stated that the U. S. Constitution is too old and that there are more recent constitutions to use as examples.

The article reports:

Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.

“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Might I point out a few flaws in her logic. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was sentenced to prison for stating an inconvenient truth about the founder of Islam (see rightwinggranny). In Canada, Mark Steyn was put on trial for stating something true about Islam in a publication. In both cases, the facts these people were citing were true–that was not the issue–the issue was that they were charged with hate speech for telling the truth. In America, we can still speak the truth without fear of arrest. What part of free speech does Justice Ginsburg not understand?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Way To Deal With A Shakedown By Extreme Environmentalists

Posted on by

Reuters is reporting today that China is banning its airlines from the European Union (EU) policy that charges a carbon fee for flights in and out of Europe. The carbon fee is essentially an additional tax and China has said that it simply will not pay the tax.

The article reports:

The EU plan is intended to curb rising greenhouse gas pollution from aviation and fight climate change. Globally, emissions from aviation comprise about two percent of mankind’s greenhouse gas pollution and this share is expected to grow.

“China hopes Europe will act in the light of the broader issues of responding to global climate change, the sustainable development of international aviation and Sino-European ties, strengthening communication and coordination to find an appropriate solution acceptable to both sides,” an unnamed official from China’s civil aviation authority said, according to the announcement.

The interesting fact in this little dust up is that China is included in the EU plan to reduce air pollution. One of the problems with the Kyoto Protocol of 2006 was that the restrictions on greenhouse gases were not extended to India and China.

The National Geographic Magazine reported in July of 2007:

Damaging air pollutants include sulfur dioxide, particulate matter—a mixture of extremely small particles and water droplets—ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. China accounts for roughly one-third of the global total for these pollutants, according to Krzyzanowski (Michal Krzyzanowski, an air quality adviser at the WHO Regional Office for Europe).

China is not willing to play the global warming game. As I have stated before, I do not support dirty air. However, I think we need to make sure that any climate change is man-caused before we cripple the major free economies of the world in the name of saving the planet. The current ‘solutions’ to global warming are nothing more than a global redistribution of wealth–the major polluters are not included in the restrictions. Evidently China does not like being included in the efforts to save the planet.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why I Want To End The United Nations

Posted on by

Yesterday the U. K. Telegraph reported that Russia and China had vetoed a United Nations resolution to back an Arab League plan to end the violence in Syria. The problem issue was a requirement that the Syrian government withdraw tanks and artillery from the streets. Syria had agreed to do this in November. On Friday it was reported that the Syrian government had killed hundreds of civilians in the city of Homs.

This would seem to be an obvious situation for the United Nations, Amnesty International, and various human rights groups to be involved with. Where are they?

Why would Russia and China veto this? Syria is a puppet state of Iran. Iran does not want the government of Syria to fall. Russia and China have been supplying Iran with nuclear material and knowledge and have been doing a lot of trading with Iran. This is all in keeping with the policy of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Russia and China are not friends of the United States. Their governments do not wish us well, although many of their people do not share those feelings. The United Nations is powerless because it has been taken over by dictators. It needs to be replaced by an organization that actually supports human rights and will protect innocent civilians.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Great Idea That Will Probably Die In The Senate

Posted on by

On Friday, the Daily Caller reported that Harry Reid told reporters that the Senate would not pass a budget this year. Senator Reid did not feel a budget was necessary because he felt that the debt-ceiling agreement already covered that. Never mind that the Senate is constitutionally required to pass a budget.

To add to the confusion, CNS News reported on Friday that the House of Representatives has now passed a bill to eliminate baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting is the practice that allows Congress to claim it is cutting the budget while it continues to increase spending. This is done by assuming every government agency will have a certain percentage increase every year. If the amount of that increase is cut, it is a considered a spending cut, even though the agency got an actual increase in the amount it could spend. For example, let’s say the Department of Education spent $100 this year. Next year they would automatically get $110. If Congress cut the budget and they were only given $105, that would be considered a budget cut, even though their budget grew.

That is baseline budgeting. That is what the House of Representatives voted to end on Friday. Is anyone willing to make a bet on how far this bill will get in the Senate?

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Doesn’t Seem Very Neighborly

Posted on by

One of the really great things about America is the idea most Americans have of being nice to people and being neighborly to the people around them. We need to remember that not every person or every country lives by those rules.

Reza Kahlili posted an article at wnd.com today reported:

Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

Because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a pre-emptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues.

As previously noted on this website, Reza Kahlili is a former CIA agent who served in Iran. He is an amazing man. His website is A Time To Betray. Not only does he have amazing insight into the political forces in Iran, he is extremely current on what is happening there.

The problem in dealing with Iran is that we are not dealing with a rational government. The Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that got us safely through the cold war will not work with the Iranian regime. The regime is controlled by the Ayatollahs–not the President. The Ayatollahs believe that the destruction of Israel will trigger the coming of the last Islamic Messiah and that Jesus Christ, who will convert to Islam, will act as Mahdi’s deputy, praying to Allah as he stands behind the 12th Imam. These are not rational people, and I am hoping that either there will be a revolution within Iran by the people who do not believe this or that Israel will attack, regardless of U. S. foreign policy. I prefer that the people of Iran somehow bring democracy to their country.

On a personal note, Mr. Kahlili has a facebook page. One of the things I have noticed in the comments to his posts are that there are many broken-hearted Iranians living in America longing to return to their country once the Ayatollahs are overthrown. You can hear the heartbreak over what has happened to their country in their posts. Those who support democracy in Iran need the prayers and support of all Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Doesn’t Sound Like A Friendly Gesture

Posted on by

One of the ironies of the current discussion about Israel and whether or not it will attack Iran in the coming months is the fact that Israel is not the only nation in the Middle East uncomfortable with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. A recent event gives us a taste of the future with an atomic Iran.

Breitbart.com is reporting that two Iranian warships have docked in Saudi Arabia in order to protect Iran’s “power on the open seas.”

The article points out:

Ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have long been strained, deteriorated in late 2011 following US allegations that a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washingtonhad been hatched in Tehran.

Tehran has also called on Riyadh to reconsider its vow to make up for any shortfall in Iran’s oil exports due to sanctions over its nuclear programme, saying Riyadh’s pledge to intervene on the market was unfriendly.

It seems to me that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the intimidation factor would increase greatly. I am afraid that the question is rapidly becoming not whether or not we will have a war in the middle east, but whether or not that war will be with a nuclear Iran or a non-nuclear Iran. Notice Iran had no problem plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington, what would they have done if they had nuclear weapons?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

In Case You Missed The New Coming Events Link

Posted on by

AN EVENING WITH ANDREW BOSTOM

“Understanding the Islam in Muslim Jew Hatred”

 February 14th at

7:30 PM

 Ahavath Torah Congregation

1179 Central Street

Stoughton, MA 02072

 Suggested Donation: $5

 Dr. Bostom will demonstrate Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world—from the 7th century advent of Islam, through the contemporary era—is rooted in the foundational texts of Islam itself.

 Dr. Andrew G. Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed books The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, and The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History.

 Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in The New York Post, The Daily News, Washington Times, National Review Online, Pajamas Media, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, Big Peace, and other print and online publications.

 Dr. Bostom speaks on topics related to jihad, the threat of Shariah Law’s encroachment on Western societies, Islam’s treatment of non-Muslim minorities in general, and Islamic Jew-hatred in particular.

    For information email office@atorah.org

Co-sponsored by Christians and Jews United for Israel, ACT Boston, ACT Framingham, Rabbis and Ministers for Israel

Enhanced by Zemanta

The End Of An Institution

Posted on by
English: A picture of the inside of a remodele...

Image via Wikipedia

One of the family jokes in our household has always been that when my computer-geek husband finally retires, he wants to be a Wal-Mart greeter. There might be some problems with that in that he is a native New York City person, and I am not sure greeting is the first thing you think of when speaking of native New Yorkers. He is, however, a very friendly person and would do a very good job as a Wal-Mart greeter. Alas, his hopes for a second career have been dashed.

A website called Patch.com is reporting that the Wal-Mart greeters will no longer be at the front of the store greeting you.

The article reports:

This week, news is spreading throughout business circles about Wal-Mart’s greeters being phased out. Patch spoke Tuesday to a longtime greeter at the Walmart Supercenter in Eureka, who said the good news is that greeters will not lose their jobs. Instead they will be repositioned at other locations inside the store, he said.

I have no idea how that will work, but it is an interesting concept. It is also good to know that the greeters will not be losing their jobs.

I was intrigued by the closing paragraph of the article:

An article about this topic in Huffington Post on Wednesday stated Walton first stumbled onto a greeter at a small Walmart in Louisiana in 1980. The greeter explained to Walton he had a “dual purpose: to make people feel good about coming in, and to make sure people weren’t walking back out the entrance with merchandise they hadn’t paid for.”

And all this time we thought they just wanted to be friends!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Unemployment Numbers

Posted on by

The truth behind the unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

The bottom line here is simple. The only reason the unemployment number is below 9 percent is that the number of people in the labor force is less than it has been. There are two ways to lower the unemployment rate–employ more people or remove people from the labor force so that the percentage of unemployed people is lower. As you can see, the number of people in the labor force is decreasing–not increasing. We are moving in the wrong direction.
Enhanced by Zemanta

One Of My Favorite Democrats

Posted on by

Tevi Troy posted an article at the City Journal entitled “The Last Sane Liberal” describing former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. Mayor Koch became mayor of New York City in January 1978. I left New York City after finishing school in 1967, but I visited on a fairly regular basis after that. There were times when it was not considered safe to ride the subways if you were a woman alone.

Mr. Troy does a very good job of explaining the appeal of Ed Koch:

But ego doesn’t fully explain Koch’s appeal. If he’d simply been selling himself in those TV appearances, New Yorkers would have seen through it. Rather, Koch conflated his mayoral success with New York’s success. As the New York Times wrote in 1989, “Edward Irving Koch has personalized the mayoralty with such delight that the line between Mayor and city blurred during the 12 years he has led New York.” What appealed to New Yorkers was the sense that Koch was out there selling the city, both to itself and to the rest of the world. The I, Koch team writes that Koch was “New York’s tireless, most optimistic cheerleader. No matter what the problem, the city was wonderful.” According to the late New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Koch had “given New York City back its morale.” Or, as Koch himself put it: “I gave the people back their spirit.”

The article concludes:

Koch became mayor at New York’s nadir and, using his signature mixture of media smarts, pluck, and sheer determination, managed to bring the city back from the brink. It surely doesn’t detract from Rudy Giuliani’s deeply impressive reign, which began in 1994, to suggest that Koch deserves credit for getting Gotham to the point where Giuliani could tackle the job. The renaming of the Queensboro Bridge after Koch in 2010 may be an imperfect way to honor a man who once said that going to Queens gave him “nosebleeds.” But it’s clear that Koch deserves a place of honor in the pantheon of New York’s most successful mayors.

Over the years Ed Koch has taken positions that put him at odds with the Democrat Party. He tends to speak his mind and form his opinions based on the facts as he sees them–not the party line. He is not afraid to stand alone when he thinks he is right. We need more people like him in both parties. I need to explain that I agree with Ed Koch on very little–but I respect him for his willingness to form his own opinions.

I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article. Ed Koch is a fascinating man.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Is The Value Of A Person’s Conscience To Society ?

Posted on by

Unfortunately that is not currently a hypothetical question. KEPR-TV reported on Wednesday that a Federal Judge will consider if Washington state can require pharmacies to stock and sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, even in the face of religious objections by druggists who believe they destroy human life.

The article reports:

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that claims state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires them to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.

When did emergency contraception (read ‘morning-after pill’) become a community need?

The article further reports:

The pharmacists argued they can easily and quickly refer customers to nearby pharmacies willing to sell the drug. Individual pharmacists are allowed to pass a prescription to another druggist in the same store, provided the patient’s order was filled without delay. But that leaves no option for a lone pharmacist, or for the owner of a pharmacy who also has religious objections to a particular drug.

The pharmacists “can violate their core religious beliefs and participate in the taking of a human life, or they can lose their license,” lawyer Kristen Waggoner said during her closing argument.

Before you decide this case has nothing to do with you for various reasons, let’s walk down the road a bit and see where it goes. Every person has a slightly different conscience. That is because we are all different and have different life experiences. However, when we begin to violate other peoples’ consciences because we share a different belief, we lose some of the reins that keep society from spinning out of control. I am sure that there were people in Germany who were offended when the government began killing the disabled and the infirm. I am sure their feelings were ignored. By the time Hitler got around to killing the Jews, the idea of a conscience was erased. There were too few people left with an idea that something was wrong to stop what was going on. Do we want to go there? Violating a person’s conscience and claiming it is part of the law is a very dangerous thing for a society to do.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Is Everyone So Concerned About How A Charity Spends It’s Money ?

Posted on by

The Washington Post is reporting today that the  Susan G. Komen foundation has revised its decision to end its funding of Planned Parenthood. It has now stated that Planned Parenthood would be allowed to apply for grants from the foundation.

There are a lot of aspects of this decision to end funding and the decision not to end funding. First of all–Planned Parenthood is not about protecting women from cancer. As previously reported (rightwinggranny.com), when a reporter called a number of Planned Parenthood locations seeking a mammogram, she was told they did not do mammograms–they were a surgical center (read as ‘abortion clinic’). So why is Planned Parenthood masquerading as a protector of women?

The Daily Caller reported yesterday:

In the wake of this week’s announcement that Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be awarding grants to Planned Parenthood, the breast cancer organization’s donations have gone up 100 percent in the last two days.

On a Thursday conference call Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, told reporters that the organization is “singularly focused” on combating breast cancer, and that the politics of the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood has been distracting from their mission.

They should have stood by that statement and noticed the increase in donations and refused to buckle under the pressure. Unfortunately, they didn’t.

The Washington Post reported one groups reaction to the announcement that the Komen foundation would no longer fund Planned Parenthood:

The Washington-based American Association of University Women said it would no longer list Komen among the community service opportunities available to the 600 college women who attend the AAUW’s annual leadership conference in June. The headquarters office will no longer sponsor Washington teams in the Komen-sponsored Race for the Cure and expects its branches to follow suit, said Lisa Maatz, AAUW’s director of public policy and government relations.

On Wednesday, an article by Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review Online added to the discussion. Ms. Lopez quotes Abby Johnson, author of Unplanned, formerly a Planned Parenthood director in Texas:

I am thankful that Komen is finally acknowledging their harmful affiliation with Planned Parenthood. The money given has never gone for “mammograms and breast services” . . . since Planned Parenthood provides neither. I believed this has happened primarily because of the public outcry of pro-lifers. I hope they continue to halt giving to such a destructive organization.

So what is the bottom line here? A website called abort73.com puts the money involved in perspective:

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, estimates that there were 1.21 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the year 2005. Of the 1.21 million annual abortions, approximately 88% (1.06 million) are performed during the first trimester. The other 12% (150,000) are performed during the second and third trimester. In 2005, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $413. The Women’s Medical Center estimates that a 2nd trimester abortion costs up to $3000 (with the price increasing the further along the pregnancy goes). If we take the $413 average for 1st trimester abortions and use a $3000 average for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, here’s what we get: $438 million is spent each year on first trimester abortions and $393 million is spent on late term abortions. That means that each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion.

This is about money. It is not about providing health services to women any more than selling cigarettes is about causing the people buying them to relax. Planned Parenthood is protecting its interests (and finances) by asking those who support it to pressure the Komen Foundation. I hope the Komen Foundation will go back to their original decision–it was the correct one.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Backlash From The Catholic Church

Posted on by

The Catholic Church has come out strongly in protest of the recent ruling announced by Heath and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on January 20.

As I previously reported (rightwinggranny.com):

The Health and Human Services Department recently announced it will require all employers (with few exceptions) to provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.

This meant that religious institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, or other Christian institutions would  be compelled to violate their conscience by cooperating with that which they believe to be wrong. Currently many of these institutions purchase health-insurance plans which do not provide free coverage of these services. 

This ruling matters to you even if you are not Catholic–everyone’s freedom to practice (or not practice) the religion of their choice is now under attack.

CNS News reported today that Representative Nancy Pelosi has stated:

Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

The Catholic Church has released a statement stating:

“In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing do). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

“We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

Nothing this political happens by accident. I can’t help but wonder what the motive of the Obama Administration is in starting this fight at this time. I know that many Catholics do not agree with their Church on the subject of birth control, but many Catholics share the Church’s believe on abortion. This needs to be watched–there may be more coming that will impact other people of faith.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Is No Way This Is Going To End Well

Posted on by

The U.K. Guardian reported today that Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stated that it may soon be too late for a military strike on Iran.

The article states:

But the veteran politician also publicly acknowledged the extent of debate and disagreement within Israel’s political and military echelons over the merits of a military strike.

He told an international conference in Herzliya, Israel, on Thursday: “The world today has no doubt that the Iranian military nuclear programme is slowly but surely reaching the final stages and will enter the immunity stage, from which point the Iranian regime will be able to complete the programme without any effective intervention and at its convenience.”

At that point it would be impractical to attack, he said.

Yesterday The Christian Science Monitor posted an article by Reza Kahlili (a former CIA spy in Iran) explaining why negotiations with Iran will not work. In his article he describes the five reasons that he believes that war with Iran should be avoided.

Some highlights from Mr. Kahlili’s article in The Christian Science Monitor:

I explained that the very ideology of Iran’s Islamic leaders was the sole reason for no progress in a negotiated settlement. They simply would not close an honest deal with infidels.

… I was working for the CIA in Europe then when my American handler told me to consider the more moderate Rafsanjani, by then president, as the new king of Iran. This despite information I had passed on about Iran’s involvement in the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland – and despite the fact that Rafsanjani and other regime leaders were involved in worldwide terrorism and assassination. The elder Bush’s efforts at negotiation failed.

Mr. Kahlili concludes:

America must openly support the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran – facilitating a direct channel of communication with them and finding a way to bring Iran’s leaders to court for crimes against humanity. 

Only then can we can hope for real change in Iran, for peace and stability.

Unfortunately President Obama voted ‘not present’ during the last Iranian uprising in the false hope that his silence would further negotiations with the Iran’s leaders. We cannot afford to make that mistake again.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The STOCK Bill Has Passed The Senate

Posted on by

The Hill reported at 6 o’clock tonight that the STOCK bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 96-3. The main purpose of the bill is to prevent lawmakers from using inside information for personal gain in trading stocks and bonds. However, there were a number of other provisions in the bill that would limit some of the extra benefits lawmakers receive that were defeated.

The article reports:

But the underlying proposal to ban lawmakers from using private information they learn in the course of their duties to profit from stock trades or other transactions received broad bipartisan support.

“We tried to focus at the specific task at hand, closing loopholes to ensure that members of Congress play by the exact same rules as everyone else,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the legislation.

“This sorely-needed bill will establish for the first time a clear fiduciary responsibility to the people we serve, removing any doubt that the SEC and CFTC are empowered to investigate and prosecute cases involving insider trading of non-public information that we have access to through our jobs,” she said.

Only three senators voted against final passage: Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).

Voting against this bill would be a definite liability for any Senator running for re-election in 2012. The bill was originally sponsored by Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts after he learned that insider trading was going on. The 60 Minutes piece on insider trading by Congress which aired a few months ago galvanized public opinion against the practice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Susan G. Komen Foundation Has Announced That It Has Severed Its Partnership With Some Planned Parenthood Affiliates

Posted on by

CBN News reported today that the Susan G. Komen Charity has severed its partnership with some Planned Parenthood affiliates. Congress is currently investigating Planned Parenthood to see if it improperly used public money for abortions.

The article reports:

In December, the Southern Baptist Convention’s publishing division recalled pink Bibles it had sold to benefit the charity.

Pro-life groups welcomed the news. the Alliance Defense Fund praised Komen “for seeing the contradiction between its lifesaving work and its relationship with an abortionist that has ended millions of lives.”

Last year, the Komen Foundation gave around $680,000 and in 2010, $580,000 to at least 19 Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood has claimed that it does mammograms and other cancer screening; but, as I reported in March of last year (rightwinggranny.com), there is some genuine question as to whether or not they actually provide those services.

As previously reported, when a women seeking to make an appointment for a mammogram called her local Planned Parenthood clinic, she was told that the clinic did not provide that service:

“In fact, one center told the caller that “we don’t deal with the health side of it so much.  We’re mostly a surgical center”:”

If Planned Parenthood actually provided mammograms, it would be reasonable for a charity fighting breast cancer to support them. Since Planned Parenthood seems to be totally focused on performing abortions (which unfortunately has become a major industry in this country), it makes sense that the Komen charity would sever their ties with Planned Parenthood.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Definitely Not Headed In The Right Direction

Posted on by

Yesterday CNSNews reported that according to the the Budget and Economic Outlook published January 31, 2012,  by the the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount of taxes collected by the government will increase 30 percent between 2012 and 2014. That increase is not due to a growing economy, which automatically increases the amount of revenue flowing into the treasury, but due to an increased tax burden placed on every American.

The article reports:

The anticipated percentage increase in federal tax revenue is not only large when calculated in dollar terms but also when calculated as a share of GDP. The jump from 15.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 20.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2014 equals an increase of 29.8 percent. The jump from 16.3 percent in fiscal 2012 to 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014 equals an increase over two years of 22.7 percent.

Federal tax revenues have averaged “about 18 percent of GDP for the past 40 years,” according to CBO. So, in the next two years federal tax revenues will rise from a level that is below the modern historical average to a level that is above it.

A revenue increase that was due to an expanding economy would help us deal with our deficit problem (although the spending–not the revenue–is at the root of the problem). As long as the government spending is out of control, the economy will not grow. Right now our economy is the equivalent of a hamster on an exercise wheel–until the hamster gets off the wheel, he is not going anywhere.

The American economy cannot survive this kind of a tax increase. It is time for everyone to take a good look at their Senators and Representatives and examine their voting record over the past ten years. If they have consistently voted to increase government spending, they need to be voted out of office in November–this cannot wait any longer. Americans will get the government they deserve (the government they vote into office). If you would like to see America survive, you need to be part of the solution–not part of the problem.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Just Getting More Complicated

Posted on by

As I have previously stated, I have no idea what to make of this. There seem to be some valid questions about President Obama’s eligibility to be President. On Monday wnd.com reported that in addition to the court case in George about putting the President on the ballot (see rightwinggranny.com), there are other states taking a closer look at how they qualify candidates for elections.

The article reports:

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Whatever happens in Georgia, Americans have the right to be fully confident that a candidate on the ballot has been checked to make sure he meets the qualifications for the office he is seeking.

The article points out:

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

The question is out there. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Meanwhile, have you read about this in the mainstream media?

Enhanced by Zemanta