Obama Dead Wrong On Doctors’ Support – Obama’s Inner Circle Shaping Up Like A Scene From Star Wars - Teaching What To 9-Year-Olds? - Disaster Of Death Care Masquerading As Health Care Masks Who Pays The Bills - Ice Melt Lowest In 30 Years - New Controversy Over Pervert Safe Schools Czar - 'Make No Mistake; We're Now In The Middle Of A Bloodless Coup'
Obama 'dead wrong' on doctors' support
Investors Business Daily survey shows physicians against government 'fix'
Commies, Fascists and Perverts, Oh My!
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Obama’s inner-circle is shaping-up like the bar scene from Star Wars. It’s a swollen throng of unaccountable czars and policy advisors comprised of some of the most bizarre fringe leftists imaginable. As mom always said, you’re known by the company you keep and Obama keeps some downright creepy company.
Here’s a sampling: First, we have disgraced former green-jobs czar Van “tinfoil hat” Jones. Jones, a self avowed communist and 9-11 “truther,” was forced to resign after revelations of his extremism became public.
Then there’s science czar John Holdren, the unzipped Harvard professor who wants a “Planetary Regime” to control world population through compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.
And of course there’s the administration’s very own Dr. Dolittle: regulatory czar Cass Sunstien, who advocates that animals be allowed to sue people.
But perhaps the creepiest of Obama’s advisers is “safe schools” chief Kevin Jennings. Jennings – an open homosexual activist – is former director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), a highly controversial group of adult homosexual activists who promote sexual anarchy and tacitly work to normalize the criminal practice of pederasty.
GLSEN’s primary purpose is to push dangerous and even deadly homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors in our government schools on children as young as five. So bold is Jennings in his promotion of homosexual behavior among children that he even penned the foreword to a book entitled “Queering Elementary Education.” (I don’t know about you, but Jennings and his ilk will “queer” my elementary-age kids over my dead body.)
A number of Jennings past activities disqualify him from holding any position relating to children; but a recently revealed scandal involving an exchange between him and a former tenth-grade student leaves no doubt that he’s unfit to serve in his current capacity. Jennings has admitted that while he was a teacher, a boy – whom he understood to be 15 years-old – shared that he had been sodomized by an “older man” who lured him home from a bus stop toilet.
Of course any reasonable teacher would have immediately called police and notified the student’s parents. But Kevin Jennings – an anti-Christian bigot who once said of Christians: “F – k ‘em! … Drop Dead!” – is anything but reasonable. Instead, he affirmed both the man-boy homosexual encounter and the boy’s “gayness,” flippantly telling him, “I hope you knew to use a condom.” (Jennings recently admitted that he “should have handled this situation differently” but, as of yet, has arrogantly refused to step-down or even apologize).
Still, Jennings’ cavalier attitude toward adult-child sex should really come as no surprise. In a1997 speech he voiced his admiration for Harry Hay, longtime advocate of the homosexual/pedophile group NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association.)
According to NAMBLA’s website, Hay made the following statement in a 1983 address: “I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”
Sickening, right? Shocking, no? Well, not to Kevin Jennings. His take? He gushed, “One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay.”
But, again, this should come as no surprise. Homosexual/pedophile groups like NAMBLA and homosexual activist groups have long been brothers-in-arms. In many instances, members of both groups are one-in-the-same. According to the non-partisan homosexual activist watchdog organization Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, NAMBLA marched alongside “gay” activist groups in “gay pride” parades for years until it became politically burdensome for homosexual activists to continue allowing them to do so.
As with “gay” activist pioneer Harry Hay, legalizing adult-child sex has long been a goal of many homosexual activists (for years, overtly and today, covertly). Boys and teens utilized for homosex are referred to as “chicken” in “gay” lexicon.
In fact, part of homosexual activists “1972 Gay Rights Platform” called for the “repeal [of] all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. Such a repeal would legally allow homosexuals and pedophiles to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification – so long as those children “consented” to having sex (like the boy who confided in Jennings).
To be sure, Jennings is no stranger to scandal. In a 2000 GLSEN sponsored event, adult homosexual activists were caught in an ACORN-style sting teaching children as young as 13 the horrific practice of “fisting.” (For a definition click here, it’s not fit to print). Jennings’ response? He defended the event and even filed suit in an attempt to cover-up the scandal.
But “cover-up” is at the very core of Jennings’ strategy. In 1995, while summarizing his political approach of manipulation and indoctrination, he warned fellow homosexual activists to hide their true motives and avoid using language about “promoting homosexuality.” Instead, he astutely observed that “the effective reframing of this issue” through the disingenuous use of propagandist euphemisms such as “safety” and “violence” was “the key to…success.”
It’s worked like a charm.
But rather than being appointed by Obama to such a position of power and prestige, both Kevin Jennings and GLSEN should be held liable for engaging in reckless educational malpractice. By promoting and facilitating homosexual behavior among children, they demonstrably place children at risk.
Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.
One such study – conducted by pro-“gay” researchers in Canada – was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997. (see the study here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf )
While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.
“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the researchers, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”
The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in
fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and
women who have had sex with MSM, from ever donating blood. (Yet Jennings and
GLSEN encourage children to engage in the very behaviors that – for
quantifiable health related reasons – would preclude them from giving blood …
Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, “have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”
Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct – especially males – are also susceptible – at an astronomical rate – to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among “gays,” and Hepatitis C is twice as common.
Furthermore, a 2007 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, although homosexuals make-up only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
So, all of this begs the question: Why on God’s earth is this Kevin Jennings nut – whose entire life’s work has irrefutably placed children at risk – in charge of promoting “safe schools”? He’s even bragged in his personal memoirs about his own drug and alcohol abuse.
Indeed, Obama’s Jennings appointment was a gold medal blunder among a litany of Olympic-sized missteps. If his administration seeks to salvage any modicum of rapidly waning credibility, the President must force Jennings to step down and denounce his reckless behavior.
Every day Jennings remains in place is another day he hurts Obama; but more importantly, it’s another day he hurts children.
The real scandal is that Jennings was ever appointed in the first place. He must go and he must go now.
J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.
you belong and pay dues to a foreign organization that is anti-morality and
anti-marriage? If not, why do we allow the United States to use our taxpayers'
money to pay dues for membership in UNESCO (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization)?
One of President Ronald Reagan's many excellent decisions was his 1984 termination of U.S. membership in this United Nations affiliate because it was corrupt, anti-Western and a vehicle for far-left propaganda. We enjoyed a nearly 20-year splendid absence from UNESCO's expensive gatherings in Paris of foreign bureaucrats promoting globalist mischief.
President George W. Bush put us back in UNESCO in 2003 as part of his steady retreat from Reaganism and devotion to an undefined new world order. President Obama hasn't yet said anything about UNESCO, but as a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world," we can assume he is pro-UNESCO.
Riding on the word "educational" in its name, UNESCO has adopted the pretense that it is in charge of prescribing curriculum for schoolchildren all over the world. UNESCO has even been trying to position itself to influence U.S. school curriculum.
In 2004 in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft Corp. to develop a "master curriculum (syllabus)" for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques. This agreement states that the syllabus will "form the basis for deriving training content to be delivered to teachers," and "UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development."
UNESCO's director general boasted that one of the goals is to foster "worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values." This fall, UNESCO has been busy writing guidelines for the teaching of sex education, supposedly in order to slow the spread of HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
In these guidelines, UNESCO tells teachers in all countries to present abstinence until marriage as "only one of a range of choices available to young people" to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Other choices would surely be more fun.
The working draft of the guidelines calls for children ages 5 to 8 to be taught in school about masturbation (age 5 means starting in kindergarten). Children 5 to 8 years old would also be taught about same-sex couples and tolerance of different sexual orientations.
Schoolchildren ages 9 to 15 are to be given more detailed discussions about masturbation. New topics on the list for 9-year-olds include orgasm and abortion.
It's no surprise that the guidelines feature enthusiastic support of abortion. UNESCO's guidelines assert that teachers should discuss "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe" abortion for students starting at age 12.
According to UNESCO, students should be taught that "legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe." Teachers should also discuss "emergency contraception" and how to get "access to safe abortion and post-abortion care."
After the news broke about what was actually in the guidelines, one of the key agencies that funded UNESCO's guidelines, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), asked that its name be removed. It's unclear whether UNFPA is critical of the guidelines, or of their explicit wording, or merely of the bad publicity generated by release of the working draft.
UNFPA's announced goal is "universal access to reproductive health services by 2015." UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programs "to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV-AIDS."
The week after UNFPA pulled its name from the UNESCO guidelines, UNFPA held a conference in Berlin to train 400 activists to advocate for abortion around the world. At the end of the conference, UNFPA issued a statement urging all nations to provide taxpayer-financed abortions, to "eliminate parental ... and age restrictions" for young people to access "the full range of sexual and reproductive health information and services," and to increase funds for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) advocating abortion and other "reproductive health-care services."
Public reaction to the UNESCO sex-ed guidelines caused UNESCO to make several changes before presenting them at the UNESCO meeting in Birmingham, England, in September. However, there was no apology for the explicitness of the sex-ed curriculum – UNESCO asserted that its guidelines are "evidence-informed and rights-based."
Criticism was not universal. Time magazine went on the attack against what it called "the knee-jerk outrage of conservative pundits" and reminded Time's readers that the UNESCO guidelines will "undergo sober and thoughtful examination in more open-minded places ... like Ethiopia."
At the tea party in Washington, D.C., a popular sign read simply, "Impeach Obama."
As a moderator of discussion on the blog www.exposeobama.com, Floyd has observed the discussion of impeachment is mushrooming amongst conservative activists.
Radio Tammy Bruce may have captured these activists' beliefs about Obama best: "Uultimately, it comes down to ... the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."
But has Barack Obama committed an impeachable offense? What exactly constitutes an impeachable offense? Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors," a concept in English common well-known to our Founding Fathers, but grossly misunderstood in this day and age. "High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.
Here's a passage from C-Span.org that succinctly summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution: "'High crimes and misdemeanors' entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered ... so Mason then proposed 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th-century language, a 'misdemeanor' meant 'mis-demeanor,' or bad behavior."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which include: gross incompetence, negligence and distasteful behavior.
For those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," the founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.
As C-Span.org notes: "The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by majority vote in the for impeachment, and by two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment."
Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn't up to the job. Obama deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis, and he was replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special recall election Oct. 7, 2003, in California.
America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others. In that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.
Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." This worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man, and a threat to your personal liberty.
Worldview explains why he has gobbled-up major banks and why the now controls more and more of our money. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.
Worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own and your own treatment. Wherever government controls , bureaucrats decide who gets treatments, transplants, dialysis and costly
Ice melt on the world's coldest continent was the lowest in 30 years during the 2008-2009 melt season, according to new research.
The finding was published in the journal Research Letters last month by Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology, cooperatively managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; and Andrew Monaghan, National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist.
"A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne observations for 1980-2009," their abstract states. "Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season."
World Climate Report posted the following line graph to illustrate the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009:
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Oct. 1: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. , holds up notes for photographers, on Capitol Hill in Washington before the start of the afternoon session of the committee's continuing hearing on health care reform legislation (AP).
Congressional budget experts gave a boost Wednesday to a Senate version of President Obama's proposed overhaul of the health care system, concluding that the bill pending in the Finance Committee would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years -- under the $900 billion target set by Obama.
The preliminary report, released Wednesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, also said the committee's health care reform package will not add to the national deficit -- and will save $81 billion over the next 10 years compared to current federal health care spending.
But the political battle over how to interpret the CBO's report may have only begun.
"Our balanced approach to health reform has paid off yet again with the news today that the America's Healthy Future Act remains fully paid for, begins to reduce the federal deficit within 10 years and makes significant reductions in federal debt over the next several decades," said Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee the key negotiator behind the legislation.
Republicans -- with the exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe -- panned the Finance effort.
"A celebration of the deficit effects masks who pays the bills," Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said. "This package includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and fees. Most Americans with health insurance will see their premiums increase."
And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Finance Committee bill wasn't viable anyway and "will never see the Senate floor."
Snowe, a member of the Finance Committee, told reporters she needs time to review the latest estimates. That the overall cost of the plan is lower than an earlier version is positive, she said.
The CBO report estimated that the bill would reduce rolls of uninsured by 29 million over the next 10 years -- ensuring that 94 percent of Americans will be covered.
The report paves the way for the Senate Finance Committee to vote as early as Friday on the legislation, which is largely in line with President Obama's call for the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system in a half-century.
Congressional tax experts say the proposed legislation would require health care industries to pay $121 billion in taxes over 10 years -- about $29 billion more than originally thought.
Finance Committee Republicans have been arguing the measure contains too many new taxes.
Grassley blasted the bill on Wednesday, saying, "It's going to be a very costly bill."
"If you take the years 2013 through 2023, you'll find that it's a very very expensive bill," he said.
The committee's proposal, which calls for co-ops instead of a so-called "public option," has to be blended with the version approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which does include the public option. Only then can it be considered by the full Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will face a difficult task in merging the two bills into one -- and presumably one that includes the government-run insurance plan that he and other liberal Democrats have steadfastly backed.
The Finance committee voted last week to strike two amendments that would establish a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance coverage. But the bill created in July by the Health Committee includes a public option and requires employers to offer insurance to their employees.
The question over whether Reid will push for a government-run insurance plan in the final legislation remains to be answered. Reid has said a public option is essential to reform, and other leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have stressed its importance in expanding coverage to the millions of uninsured.
"Today’s news from the Congressional Budget Office on the Finance Committee's bill is another important step down the road toward enacting comprehensive health insurance reform," Reid said. "I look forward to the Finance Committee completing its work as soon as possible. After the committee acts, we must begin the important work of merging their proposal with the HELP Committee legislation. We'll work with the White House and the chairmen of the HELP and Finance Committees to craft a bill that can garner 60 votes."
The final Senate bill will then go up against the House version, which includes a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said he intends to submit the House health care reform bill to the CBO by Friday.
House Democrats are expected to discuss potential "pay-fors" in their health care reform bill on Thursday, congressional aides told FOX News.
"Everything will be done by tomorrow," Rangel said.
Republican leaders argue that congressional analysis of Senate
bill's effect on deficit 'masks who pays the bills'
• U.S. Budget Deficit Hit Record $1.4 Trillion in 2009
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said Wednesday.
The Congressional Budget Office estimate, while expected, is bad news for the White House and its allies in Congress as they press ahead with health care overhaul legislation that could cost $900 billion over the next decade.
The unprecedented flood of red ink flows from several factors, including a big drop in tax revenues due to the recession, $245 billion in emergency spending on the Wall Street bailout and the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then there is almost $200 billion in costs from President Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as increases in programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamps.
The previous record deficit was $459 billion and was set just last year.
The Obama health plan would be "paid for" with new revenues and curbs in spending. But the overhaul effort would eat up tax increases and spending cuts that could be used to bring the deficit down.
Obama has attributed the nation's dismal fiscal situation to the financial and economic crises he inherited. White House Budget Director Peter Orzsag is overseeing the administration's efforts to tackle the soaring deficit next year.
"As part of the fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that return us to a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits in the out-years," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview.
The huge deficits have raised worries about the willingness of foreigners to keep purchasing Treasury debt. The administration promises that once the recession is over and the financial system is stabilized, it will move forcefully to get the deficits under control.
Economists worry that the deficits could place upward pressure on interest rates in future years as the government has to offer higher rates to attract investors.
Republicans pounced on the bad news.
"This new CBO data makes it clear that our children and grandchildren will end up buried under a mountain of debt if we continue taxing, spending and borrowing at these dangerous levels," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "How many alarm bells have to be set off before Washington Democrats get serious about tackling dangerous budget deficits?"
Economists say the best measure of the deficit is to compare it with the size of the economy. On those terms, the 2009 deficit reached almost 10 percent of gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II.
The White House says it wants deficits in the next few years to stabilize at or below 3 percent of GDP. But by the White House's own estimates released in August -- which predicted deficits averaging about 4 percent through the rest of the decade -- it would take several hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes or spending curbs to just get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP.
Those steps would easily exceed the efforts under way now to pay for Obama's health care plan. For example, bringing the 2014 deficit back in line with Obama's goals would require about $240 billion in deficit-closing steps in that year alone -- near the amount of revenue that would flow from the expiration of former President George W. Bush's tax cuts.
Such steps would almost certainly force Obama to break his promise to limit tax increases to the wealthy.
Other budget experts predict higher deficits that would require even more painful steps.
by Michael Barone In trying to understand what is happening in the nation and world, we all employ narratives -- story lines that indicate where things are going and what is likely to happen next. We can check the validity of these narratives by observing...
By MICHAEL FALCONE Any successful efforts by Congress to cut off federal funding to scandal-plagued ACORN would have little effect on the community organizing group’s overall operations, its chief executive officer said on Tuesday. “We didn’t have...
by Pamela Geller ACORN wants people to register to vote – as long as they’re Democrats. Republican registrations go into the trash. Here is a first-hand account of how it happens. In February 2008, Fathiyyah Muhammad of Jacksonville, Florida, heard...
Defends communism, welfare state but says 'white majority' oppose programs aiding blacks, Hispanics
By Aaron Klein
The U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.
The Obama czar's controversial comments were made in his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," which was obtained and reviewed by WND.
In the book, Sunstein openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism.
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."
Continued Sunstein: "I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic."
Sunstein claims the "socialist movement" did not take hold in the U.S. in part because of a "smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs."
He laments, "In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States."
Sunstein wants to spread America's wealth
WND first reported Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.
A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice" and reviewed by WND, maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.
"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.
He posited: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.
"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives," he wrote.
Sunstein maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."
Sunstein proposed 'socialist' bill of rights
In "The Second Bill of Rights," WND also reported, Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:
· The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
· The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
· The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
· The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
· The right of every family to a decent home;
· The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
· The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
· The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appealed anew Wednesday for widespread inoculation against a surging swine flu threat, calling the vaccine "safe and secure." Sebelius unconditionally vouched for the safety of the vaccine, saying...
by Sharon Hughes While the White House claims an urgency to pass healthcare reform, and while Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, tries to convince the American people that the $787 billion stimulus plan is working...
Despite Governor’s Threat to Veto All Bills Without a Water Deal, Two Bills Deserve Immediate Vetoes October 8th — Anaheim, California —“With only 3 days left to take action, Traditional Values Coalition is urging in the strongest terms that Governor...
Despite Governor’s Threat to Veto All Bills Without a Water Deal, Two Bills Deserve Immediate Vetoes
October 8th — Anaheim, California —“With only 3 days left to take action, Traditional Values Coalition is urging in the strongest terms that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately veto Senate Bill 54 and Senate Bill 572, water deal or not,” said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). “SB 54 will pave the way for continued legal challenges to Prop 8’s constitutional standing and SB 572 will open the floodgates for the glorification of controversial homosexual leaders in all California schools. Both of these bills are unacceptable and warrant immediate vetoes.”
Several recent news reports revealed that Governor Schwarzenegger threatened legislative leaders that all bills on his desk pending action would be vetoed if no satisfactory water deal was agreed to. TVC announced today that it supports the Governor’s potential action. While TVC does not support the objectives of many of the bills on the governor’s desk, such as those bills that would allow for increases in the car tax anywhere from $1 to upwards of $10, and those implementing additional regulations on businesses, allowing for early prisoner release, restricting the right of the people to qualify ballot initiatives and creating more unnecessary commissions (such as the proposed Blueberry Commission), it is SB 54 and SB 572 that is of extreme caution and concern for TVC’s constituency in the state, concerned parents, individuals, pastors and churches.
SB 54 and SB 572, both authored by Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, are two of the approximately 700-plus bills awaiting action by the governor. SB 54 would allow for all homosexual marriages performed in other states prior to Prop 8’s passing in 2008 to be valid and recognized here in California. SB 572 would create a “Harvey Milk Day” throughout California schools each May 22 of every year, whereby schools would be encouraged to conduct undefined “commemorative exercises” about the homosexual life and political career of Harvey Milk, a San Franciscan who was active in the homosexual movement.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger needs to be consistent when it comes to the same-sex marriage bill on his desk,” Sheldon said. “He said he would not go against the will of the voters when he vetoed Leno’s previous homosexual marriage bills. He must now follow his own lead and logic yet again and soundly reject SB 54. Over 7 million Californians said no to homosexual marriage when they passed Prop 8. Why then should he sign a bill into law that allows for more homosexual marriages to be valid and would give legal footing to those couples from out of state that would seek to undermine Prop 8 in court yet again!!”
TVC’s chief legislative analyst and advocate Benjamin Lopez said this regarding SB 572:
“SB 572 is just like Assembly Bill 2567 from 2008. It is the same bill requiring the same veto. Even the governor’s Secretary of Education issued a letter agreeing with the Governor’s veto of last year’s Harvey Milk Day bill. They said ‘Since the bill is nearly identical, the veto message [from last year] remains applicable [today].’ Nothing has changed since 2008. The governor should not be duped into thinking otherwise. No movie or medal of freedom makes one a national figure worthy of a day of recognition. Especially when more deserving Californians, who were actually known beyond one city and have more accomplishments, such as Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Walt Disney, William Randolph Hearst, are overlooked. Harvey Milk has a long line to wait in before he is even justifiably considered for a day of his own.”
Lopez, who testified against SB 572 at every legislative hearing, added: “Harvey Milk died in a political, workplace disagreement that had nothing to do with homosexuality. He is no martyr and no school kid should have to listen to stories about his involvement in the homosexual movement or about his sexual affairs with young men. Milk and his lifestyle have no place in California’s schools. Harvey Milk is not the pride of the Golden State; rather, he is an embarrassment.”
TVC is encouraging concerned individuals to contact the governor to ask that he veto these bills. He can be sent an electronic message at: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email. Schwarzenegger has until October 11th to take action or all bills automatically become law if no action is taken.
Ayers 'confesses' he wrote Obama's 'Dreams'
Was ex-Weatherman terrorist merely mocking reporters or leaking the truth?
Cambridge cancels Savage debate
'Difficult decision': British society cites 'legal issues' days before event
BETWEEN THE LINES
Outrage on planet Washington
Exclusive: Jane Chastain flays lawmakers for shamelessly pumping up own budgets
THE OTHER RUSH
A nation of pigs
Exclusive: Erik Rush urges citizens to fight cultural degradation as they have political
A nation of pigs
October 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
Sometimes these columns practically write themselves.
As many of my readers are aware, those who are dedicated to the wholesale destabilization of America work on two primary fronts, these being the political and the cultural. A couple of items that have gained media attention over the past couple of weeks speak volumes to the of American culture; while they have proven disturbing to many Americans, I believe that some elucidation is in order regarding the big picture.
On Sept. 26, 2009, film director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss in Zürich, Switzerland, while trying to enter that country. The arrest was in connection with an outstanding warrant from the U.S. that dated back to 1978; Polanski had fled the U.S. that year to avoid prosecution for the rape of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer, in every way imaginable by most people. He stayed abroad, avoiding prosecution for 30 years.
Authorities in California (where the crime occurred) hoped to have Polanski extradited to the U.S., but there were a couple of hitches: One was that there was no guarantee of cooperation from Swiss authorities.
The other was probably a bit less expected. On Sept. 28, over 100 individuals, including several top Hollywood directors and a host of other entertainment industry celebrities, signed a petition protesting Polanski's arrest and detention by the Swiss. Among them was the -seducing comic director Woody Allen. Given the high profiles of these parties, of course, the story of their solidarity with the fugitive director, now 76, became as big as that of his arrest.
Then, on Oct. 1, during a taping of CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," the late-night host publicly admitted that he had engaged in sexual affairs with female staffers. The impetus for this confession lay in a recent blackmail threat relating to these liaisons. On Oct. 5, Letterman publicly apologized to his wife for these indiscretions, again, during the taping of that night's show.
Some Americans, and much of the establishment press, have lauded Letterman's confession and apology as extraordinarily honorable and praiseworthy.
So, Letterman's stinginess overcame his pride. Big deal. The man is obviously not stupid; he knew that progressives (like the majority of his audience) don't kick their own to the curb for that sort of thing; they exalt them. Whether he outed himself, or was betrayed by the blackmailer, it was a win-win situation for the late-night icon.
In the case of Polanski, the concept of a klatsch of contemptible, insular libertines pleading the case of a pedophiliac rapist is simply beyond despicable; it reveals what depraved, loathsome creatures these people are, and illustrates in magnificent detail why their value system ought not only be eschewed by Americans at large, but demonstrably derided.
While the political left has been busy neutralizing our liberties and compromising the U.S. abroad, progressives in , the press and the entertainment media are transforming us into a nation of – and altogether too many of us are not yet aware of it. Anything prurient goes, and the to which Americans' morality has already been undermined will likely take decades to repair as it is.
A few cases in point:
Think of these examples like cockroaches; for every one that you see, there are hundreds more that you do not see.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I, Constitution of the United States of America
The left's convoluted logic and specious contentions vis-a-vis First Amendment provisions for free speech can no longer be allowed to stand. If Congress shall make no law, and has made no law, no one's rights have been violated. Whatever measures the populace takes to curtail the actions of dissolute entertainers and public servants are also protected, so long as they are nonviolent.
And it is time that those measures be taken. Americans must begin to act toward the preservation of a reasonably decent, moral environment, in similar fashion as they have begun to act toward the preservation of their liberties.
An Unacknowledged War in Latin America
Obama administration endangers U.S. troops in Colombia
An Unacknowledged War in Latin America
The United States is at war in Latin
America - or more properly - nations and guerrilla armies are at war with the
United States. Although under attack, and our citizens have been killed,
there has been no acknowledgement by the U.S. government or media that this
nation is involved in a full-scale war. America has already lost lives in
this war, and now the U.S. government seems set to again commit an error
which led to the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans in
While the intent is to replace the
anti-drug facility at Manta, the Obama administration has committed U.S.
military personnel to an anti-drug campaign inside a nation which is fighting
an ongoing 40-year civil war. American advisors have assisted the Colombian
military for years, but the projected increase of U.S. personnel raises the
possibility of larger scale engagements between American and enemy
Brownfield's declaration was meant to
counter charges from several Latin American nations that the U.S. will use
Colombia as a base for military expansion in the region, but it will also
cost American lives.
Mao chose the illegal drug trade to keep
money flowing to his revolution. The FARC is following Mao's example, as is
the Shining Path (Spanish, Sendero Luminoso) in Peru. The Shining Path
is a Maoist revolutionary group. It has turned to the illicit drug trade to
fund its remnant force, while offering generous cash inducements to join the
citizen Thomas John Janis and the plane's pilot, Colombian soldier Luis
Alcides Cruz, were killed by FARC guerrillas. The remaining three, Marc
Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell, were captured. They remained
prisoners of the FARC for more than five years, until a daring ruse in July
2008 by Colombian forces freed the Americans, as well as one-time Colombian
presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, and 11 others. The three Americans
wrote a book about their experiences, Out of Captivity: Surviving 1,967
Days in the Colombian Jungle.