USCCB Enabling An Antichrist To Destroy America From Within As Pathological Liar In The White House Wants Baby Killing As Health Care After All – The Case Of The Missing Moral Authority - Some Headlines That Make You Shake Your Head And Marvel At New Levels Of Insanity Reached – Climate Of Hate As More Threats From Sodomites - Dark Secrets Of AARP Finally Exposed To Light – Cap And Trade Bill Is Fatally Flawed - To Quote Another Lone Jihadist, “It’s In The Koran”






Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not A Right; Medical Care Is A Right - Catholic Medical Association Statement On Health Care Reform


Catholic Bishop: “No Health Care Reform Is Better Than The Wrong Health Care Reform” - Canadacare Imploding – Death Panels Charge Is Right On – Communists In Power To Ram Death Care Down Our Throats – Energy Workers Rally Against Insane Climate Plan – DOMA Under Attack By Feds - Immigration Reform That Respects Taxpayers And The Law

In regard to the story below, there is nothing wrong with Catholic bishops reflecting traditional Church teaching to influence those in their flock to publicly witness to the faith for salvation's sake in accord with the common good leading ultimately to a supernatural good in a Kingdom not of this world!    That's called orthodox Catholic catechesis!

The difficulty arises when that aforementioned Church teaching is trashed on an altar of political expedient socialism seeking earthly utopias which are lies of the father-of-lies!  In this instance, it appears that, in regard to the diabolical death care masquerading as health care, as promoted by the usurper, Resident Obama, the hapless bishops are not influencing for the good but rather the bad.

Are the bishops that naive to think that an apostate like Pelosi, who never met a Catholic dogma on faith and morals that she wouldn't flout without hesitation, all of sudden is concerned about baby killing when her modus operandi throughout her career as speaker was just the opposite in promoting the entirety of a culture-of-ETERNAL-death condemned by Holy Mother Church?   See the following links.


Marxists On Way To Controlling Us Helped By Duplicitous USCCB – Palin BLASTS Pelosi Bill - Common Sense From A Judicial Giant On Growing Tyranny - The Cold-Hearted Insincere Tone Of Obama Re The Terroristic Ft. Hood Shootings By A Jihadist - Obama's Ties To Islam


Senior Democrat "Confident" Stupak Amendment Will Perish In Later Bill Version - Bishop To Kennedy: "Your Position Is Unacceptable To The Church"

There are some strange things coming from Rome, not the least of which are statements by the hierarchy that render them indistinguishable from Free Masons!   See the following links.

The Healthy Laicism of the State is Oxymoronic in a Catholic Sense


Why Is the Church De Facto Glorifying a Kingdom OF This World Bearing No Resemblance To Catholicism?

Little wonder that the aforementioned confusion in regard to Catholic teaching has some wondering just why are the Catholic bishops enabling an antichrist to destroy our country from within?  See the link below.

To summarize,  the Catholic problems with Obama's death care bill are not related solely to abortion but rather cover the entire gamut of a culture-of-ETERNAL-death that is shamelessly promoted by Obama and his minions in the leadership of a Democratic Party that has long since decided that it wants a one-way ticket to hell!  - Gary L. Morella



Now isn't this a revelation as the pathological liar in the White House wants baby killing as Health-Care after all‏!



Marxists On Way To Controlling Us Helped By Duplicitous USCCB – Palin BLASTS Pelosi Bill - Common Sense From A Judicial Giant On Growing Tyranny - The Cold-Hearted Insincere Tone Of Obama Re The Terroristic Ft. Hood Shootings By A Jihadist - Obama's Ties To Islam





President Obama Comments on Abortion in Health-Care Reform


by Kim Trobee, editor


The president made statements that appear to land on both sides of the issue.


President Obama said in an interview with ABC News on Monday that he doesn't want to change the "status quo" with regard to government funding of abortion.
To date, the proposals have offered funding for abortion.  But a forced vote on an amendment by pro-life Democrats prohibited that.
President Obama said he doesn't want "to restrict women's insurance choices" – meaning he wants plans that include abortion to continue offering them after the government gets involved.
In the interview with reporter Jake Tapper, Obama appeared to support the Hyde Amendment that prohibits abortion funding in other areas of federal law.
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test – that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions," he said.
While the president sounds like he's on both sides of the issue, he may be attempting to make a fine distinction.  It would appear his argument is that money given to the federal government as premiums and paid out for abortions does not qualify as "tax money," and therefore is not, in his mind, "federal funding."  Pro-life groups disagree strongly.
President Obama told a joint session of Congress in September that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."
That proved false upon further inspection of the House bill.
 Pro-Life News Report 11/11/09 #4750‏

From: (


Tue 11/10/09 7:26 PM Pro-Life News Report
Wednesday, November 11, 2009

For news updated throughout the day, visit

Current Headlines

Obama Wants to Weaken Abortion Funding Ban in Health Care Reform Legislation

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 10, 2009


Washington, DC ( -- In an interview on Monday, President Barack Obama refused to support an amendment in the health care bill that would ban taxpayer funding of abortions. Obama said he didn't want to change the "status quo" on abortion and added there is "more work to do" on the bill.
"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama told ABC News. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."
Obama appeared to side with abortion advocates who claim the Stupak amendment in the health care bill somehow changes the current status quo on government abortion funding -- which, under the Hyde amendment and other pro-life provisions is mostly banned.
“There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo” on abortion, Obama added. “And that’s the goal.”
Obama also sided with pro-abortion groups in saying he wanted to make sure “we're not restricting women’s insurance choices,” because he had promised that “if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it’s not going to change.”
Ultimately, he said he wanted to weaken the Stupak abortion funding ban so that “neither side feels that it’s being betrayed.”
But his comments -- which see him attempting to curry favor with both sides of the abortion debate -- made it clear that he is siding with abortion advocates, because the ban clearly prohibits abortion funding.  {Not true because baby killing in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother is allowed, to the best of my knowledge! So we still have a long way to go before we can unequivocally make the statement that abortion funding is banned  to include protecting those who find themselves in the womb because of the crimes of others or who are given second class citizen status because of being in the womb when every attempt must be made to save both their lives and their mothers' - all of which matters not to Obama who wouldn't even support BAIPA for fear of upsetting the baby killers who contribute to him! - Gary L. Morella}
“I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, BUT, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women’s insurance choices,” he said.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, chided Obama for his comments.

"The only thing that will prevent the health care bill from being 'an abortion bill' is precisely the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as the House of Representatives recognized by a 46-vote margin," he said.
"The phoniness of Obama's claim that he has been trying to preserve the 'status quo' on abortion policy should be evident to any observer by now. In reality, the White House and top Democratic congressional leaders have been working hard to create a national federal government health plan that would fund abortion on demand, just as Obama promised Planned Parenthood," Johnson added.
Obama's comments came after his top spokesman Robert Gibbs repeatedly refused to say where Obama stood on the Stupak amendment.




Some headlines that just grab at you and make you shake your head and marvel at new levels of insanity reached.‏



AMA Jumps Into Gay Rights Fight

Medical group urges repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' says marriage bans contribute to health disparities for gays - Which begs the obvious question, "Just what did Emanuel, Axelrod, and Obama give the AMA leadership to subvert our military since clearly the membership itself is in strong disagreement with its leadership per its recent endorsement of Obama's Death Care bill which is anathema to Doctors in more than name only! 



Vatican Seeks Signs of Alien Life

Experts called in to study possibility of extraterrestrial life and its implication for the Catholic Church -  A lot of money can be saved here as the Alien life the Vatican seeks can be easily found in the vast majority of its hierarchy that evinces nothing of being Catholic with the implication that apostasy is rampant in the institutional Catholic Church which cares more about earthly utopias via peace and social justice pablum ad nauseam instead of a Kingdom not of this world!    


Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob

November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin


Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 10, 2009 05:24 PM


I noted a leading Maine gay activist’s threat against traditional marriage proponents the day after Election Day.

There’s more:


Police are investigating a pair of threats against gay marriage opponents in Maine.

Marc Mutty from Stand for Marriage Maine says a threatening voicemail message was discovered Monday morning at campaign headquarters in which a female caller said, “You will be dead. Maybe not today, not tomorrow. But soon you’ll dead.” Police in Yarmouth are investigating.

Augusta police say a separate voicemail threat targeted Michael Heath, former leader of the Christian Civic League of Maine and its successor, the Maine Family Policy Council. Heath wasn’t actively involved in the gay marriage campaign, but he fought against a gay rights law in campaigns in 1998, 2000 and 2005.


Nope, no Krugman columns decrying the “insane rage” of the Left yet.


Gay marriage mob harasses petition-signers in Washington state

June 2, 2009 10:32 AM by Michelle Malkin

Posted: Tuesday November 10, 2009 at 5:08 pm EST by Judie Brown


These past few days of haggling and heckling over H.R. 3962, the Pelosi version of  Obama-style  “health care reform,” have left me with a rather sick feeling. What I have learned about the levers of power and how corrupting they can be, even to those in positions of moral leadership such as the Catholic bishops of this nation, is a sobering lesson indeed.

I first surmised that something was amiss when Justin Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, sent a
letter on Saturday, November 7 to each member of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

The letter urged the representatives to vote in favor of the “Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment,” commonly referred to as the
Stupak Amendment. The USCCB asserted that this amendment would provide consistent protection for the rights of conscience and maintain the current law on abortion funding. It should be noted that, tragically, current law still allows taxpayer funding of abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.

The letter further states,

The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.


In the days following the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which led directly to the passage of the Pelosi bill, it has been argued that the amendment’s passage is a victory for pro-life Americans. We are sorry to have to throw cold water on the celebration, but frankly, this is false, for the following reasons.
First, there is the undeniable fact that whatever the seriously deficient Stupak Amendment may or may not do, its language could fall out of any bill ultimately voted on in President Obama’s quest to pass a “health care reform” bill. Second, the
Stupak Amendment only addresses abortion funding (and only partially at that).

The Pelosi bill (
H.R. 3962) includes the following provisions:

• Expanded access to and funding of abortifacient contraception  (section 1714)

• Federal funding of Planned Parenthood-style permissive sex education programs “to prevent teen pregnancy” (section 2526), similar to that stipulated in the
Senate version of Obamacare

• Deceptive definitions that, in fact, allow euthanasia through withholding or withdrawing “medical treatment or medical care” and withholding or withdrawing of  “nutrition or hydration” (section 240)


• Vaguely worded references to conscience rights and only partial protection of the same (sections 258 and 259)


• Language that forces a “participating health benefits plan” to not “discriminate” against any facilities that “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” (section 304)

Of course, the first two provisions would result in massive new federal subsidies for organizations such as Planned Parenthood, which peddle contraceptives, abortion and sexual promiscuity, especially to our youth.

The bottom line is that the intent to restore full protection of the human person and his inalienable right to life does not appear to be high on the USCCB’s list of priorities. Instead, it appears content with maintaining the sordid, deadly status quo. This leads one to presume that the USCCB wants mandatory health care coverage for one and all more than it desires the protection of all vulnerable human beings’ right to life.

Catholic News Service reports, “[T]he successful battle to include strict language prohibiting funding for abortions, led by pro-life congressional Democrats with the strong support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is what made the difference in the Nov. 7 House vote to pass a sweeping health care reform bill.”

The article then explains that the USCCB is not happy that the final House bill “would bar people who are in the country illegally from receiving any government assistance to get health coverage.” 

However, CNS fails to mention that there are other classes of human beings whose right to life is simply ignored in the bill.

Perhaps the most telling portion of the CNS report is this: Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, said the vote signaled “a day for celebration among Catholics and all Americans who believe that life’s greatest test is how deeply we care for one another.”

That, my friends, is what the brouhaha is all about, after all. We care deeply for one another as long as we are not thinking of our brothers and sisters in nursing homes, critical care centers, in vitro fertilization clinics, embryonic stem cell research facilities, Planned Parenthood offices where abortive chemicals are dispensed and abortions are committed on someone else’s dime; or those unfortunate people who would be denied care altogether because of the immense, bankrupting burden this legislation would eventually impose on all U.S. taxpayers. How deeply do we care for one another? Not very deeply at all, it would seem.

The passage of this bill with the USCCB's assistance of the USCCB is but another confirmation that the USCCB’s agenda is far different than what one might hope for from the entity representing the shepherds of the nation’s largest religious body—the men who are the Twelve Apostles' direct successors and called to walk in their footsteps.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media commented, “Contrary to some media reports, the U.S. Catholics Bishops never opposed a national health care scheme. In fact, their main objection was to a provision for federal funding of abortion. Once that provision was eliminated, the Catholic Bishops embraced the bill.”

So what is one to make of this little game? After all, we are not playing
Clue with Grandma in the kitchen; we are negotiating over a piece of legislation that would drastically change the face of this nation, not to mention her bank account. What could the bishops and the bureaucrats who represent them be thinking?

Was it Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Revolver? Or did Miss Scarlet commit the crime in the Library with the Candlestick?” the Hasbro web site asks. 

No, it’s really not as exciting or as challenging as the game of Clue. In fact, this game could result in a disaster so large that nobody can imagine the consequences. You see, in this game, there are no dice to roll, just the politics of accommodation. In this game, the cost to play has been so great that the USCCB has gambled its moral authority by politicking with the wayward instead of instructing them.

There was a time when Catholic bishops wisely invested themselves in teaching their flock, preparing them to be the men and women of faith who could remold a nation and her politics by standing up for God and His truth. Currently, the USCCB’s leaders themselves appear to be all about politics.  And that is very sad indeed.

Upon learning of the USCCB’s letter to Congress this past weekend and the subsequent vote, American Life League issued this
statement, which pained me greatly, but which had to be made: 

Our Catholic bishops should be fearlessly leading the way towards a culture of life. Fighting to maintain a status quo that has led to the destruction of 51 million preborn children is wrong and confusing to 65 million Catholics united in the defense of life.


What Cardinal Rigali has permitted, by way of political maneuvering, is to allow an amendment to be heard and, we fear, later watch it be defeated. While our Catholic bishops will scramble to define their opposition to abortion in the aftermath, Pelosi will wave Cardinal Rigali’s support for health care reform as evidence that lay Catholics would somehow be wrong in opposing her bill.

In endorsing Pelosicare, our Catholic bishops have risked making themselves political pawns in advancing a culture of death that treats human beings as disposable.

Once again, this incrementalist approach to abortion will serve to enshrine in law grave injustices condemned unequivocally by the Catholic Church. Among these are rationed health care, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, human experimentation, euthanasia and birth control.

Faithful Catholics have a responsibility to vigorously oppose all acts of killing in health care, not negotiate for the status quo.

Our Catholic bishops, when they negotiate for anything less than the full protection all human beings deserve, undermine the very principles of the Catholic faith and destroy the confidence of faithful Catholics across America.

Our Catholic bishops should point to the unchanging principles and doctrines of the Catholic faith, not negotiate for a status quo that ends the lives of human beings. Today’s letter abrogates those principles. Americans should know that a truly Catholic position on health care protects the right to life of all human beings, at all stages and at all times.

Negotiation of truth is never a Catholic principle. Truth alone should inform the consciences of faithful Catholics, and truth demands the full protection of all human beings.”


As one astute commentator wrote in the Wall Street Journal

Mrs. Pelosi’s craftiest political turn was a last-minute compromise to strip federal funds from insurance plans that cover abortions. The deal—negotiated by Stupak and supported by the National Right to Life Committee—gave cover to 40-some Democrats to support the larger bill.

However, as subsidized costs soar, government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill. Is pre-natal life more valuable than the elderly? We’re reminded of the way pro-lifers supported Kennedy over Laurence for SCOTUS in1987 merely because Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic who claimed to personally oppose abortion. Mr. Stupak played the right-to-lifers like a Stradivarius.


Though not specifically noted in the WSJ commentary, the USCCB willingly played the same tune. Now you know the answer. The case of the missing moral authority is solved.

Judie Brown



Obama: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?




Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan to fellow military doctors: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!” Updated


By Michelle Malkin  •  November 9, 2009 11:31 PM


I want to see the whole thing. Every American should demand to see the whole damned thing. And then you need to demand to know the names of every higher-ups in the military and the government who read or saw this thing and did nothing about it.

I’m talking about the chilling slide presentation that Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan gave at Walter Reed Hospital while a senior-year psych resident in June 2007. The Washington Post publishes details of the slide presentation, though not the original document itself. [Update: Good! WaPo publishes the full slide presentation here.]

Goodbye, “Do no harm.” Hello, “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”

As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, both Muslim countries, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

“It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” he said in the presentation.

“It was really strange,” said one staff member who attended the presentation and requested anonymity because of the investigation of Hasan. “The senior doctors looked really upset” at the end. These medical presentations occurred each Wednesday afternoon, and other students had lectured on new medications and treatment of specific mental illnesses.


This sentence misses the point:


Investigators looking into Hasan’s background are examining his religious beliefs, whether he harbored extremist views, and whether he was in contact with others who may have encouraged violence against U.S. soldiers.


Who needs “contact with others who may have encouraged violence against U.S. soldiers?” The point is that Hasan told the military all they needed to know about what he came in contact with that encouraged violence against U.S. soldiers.


The title of Hasan’s power-point presentation was “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” It consisted of 50 slides. In one slide, Hasan described the presentation’s objectives as identifying “what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military.”


To quote another lone jihadist, “it’s in the Koran.”



He also sought to “Describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims may have” who serve in the U.S. military and to convince the Army that it should identify these individuals.

Other slides delved into the history of Islam, its tenets, statistics about the number of Muslims in the military, and explanations of “offensive jihad,” or holy war…

…Under a slide titled “Comments,” he wrote: “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the ‘infidels’; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.” [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”

Under the “Conclusions” page, Hasan wrote that “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam,” and that “Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!”

The final page, labeled “Recommendation,” contained only one suggestion:

“Department of Defense should allow Muslims (sic) Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”


“Adverse event” = Hasan’s own foretelling euphemism for bloody jihad against his own fellow American soldiers.

Evil showed it hand that day at Walter Reed. But the response to evil was all too typical:

The warning signs were etched right there on his own business card. But no one acted.
P.C.-paralyzed America, heal thyself

Commie-lovin' White House official stepping down ...



White House communications chief to step down
WND report documented Anita Dunn boasting of 'control' over media

Posted: November 10, 2009
1:20 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Anita Dunn

White House communications director Anita Dunn, on whose comments about President Obama's "control" of the media WND reported, is slated to step down from her post at the end of the month, according to sources talking to the Washington Post.

Dunn had been leading a campaign against Fox News Channel, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

Last month, WND posted a video of Dunn in which she disclosed to the Dominican government that President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled."

That video subsequently was quoted widely by the news media.

Dunn took over the communications director job on an interim basis earlier this year. According to sources speaking to the Washington Post, Dunn's deputy, Dan Pfeiffer, will take on her position.

The Post reported the "passing of the baton from Dunn to Pfeiffer long had been expected within White House circles" as she had made clear when she took the job that the "interim" in her title was meant to be taken literally.

Dunn will remain as a consultant to the White House on communications and strategic matters, the Post added.

Dunn has been facing some criticism since her attacks on Fox News began last month.

Check out the hot new best-seller – "Muslim Mafia"

Fox hit back, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Also, WND posted a video of Dunn speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn to the audience.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

Dunn's impending departure makes her the second Obama administration official to step down following controversies on which WND has reported.

In September, Van Jones, Obama's special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, quit following reports Jones founded a communist organization in the 1990's and signed a statement implying the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

WND reported that Jones in 1994 founded the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.

Subsequent WND revelations reported by WND about Jones included:







EPA lawyers: Cap-and-trade bill is “fatally flawed”


November 10, 2009 11:00 AM by Michelle Malkin



EPA lawyers: Cap-and-trade bill is “fatally flawed”

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 10, 2009 11:00 AM

The EPA has two more whistleblowers in its own ranks calling out the agency’s flawed agenda and the cap-and-trade monstrosity.


You’ll recall the case of Alan Carlin, whose research critical of the outdated data used in EPA’s “public endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases was stifled by EPA.


EPA lawyers Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel have also stepped forward. They are critical from a very different angle, but reach the same basic conclusion: The “solutions” backed by EPA and Congress are “fatally flawed.”


Via Heritage, here’s a YouTube video the couple made outlining their complaints:


Despite including a caveat that the opinions expressed were their own and not the agency’s, the couple faces possible disciplinary action by the EPA.


While demanding the video be yanked (others have re-posted it online), the EPA disingenuously claims it tolerates all dissenting views of its employees.










WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Dark secrets of AARP
finally exposed to light

Executives, employees backed
Obama, Dems by 14-to-1 ratio






Dark secrets of AARP finally exposed to light
Executives, employees backed Obama, Dems by 14-to-1 ratio

Posted: November 10, 2009
8:25 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

When the American Association of Retired Persons – one of the wealthiest advocacy groups in the U.S. – began backing the $1.2 trillion House health bill despite concerns about Medicare cuts, death panels and assisted suicide, many members shredded their membership cards, saying the organization no longer represents their interests – but AARP's history of left-leaning activism on a host of issues may surprise its constituents.

AARP's Nov. 5 health bill endorsement left many seniors wondering why the powerful group that claims to represent their interests would call for an estimated $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, a system many seniors have indicated that they would like to preserve.

"After carefully monitoring developments in Washington and studying the various legislative proposals, AARP's all-volunteer Board of Directors – made up of working and retired doctors, nurses, business people, and teachers – has decided to endorse the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962/H.R. 3961) because it delivers on key priorities we've been fighting for," an AARP announcement stated.

But while many seniors enjoy AARP membership discounts on health and car insurance, vacations and advice on financial planning, the group has a history of Left-leaning political stances and activism.

Why the AARP health 'reform' endorsement?

AARP collects royalties on "Medigap insurance," a privately purchased insurance coverage that helps pay some of the health-care costs that Medicare doesn't cover.

However, seniors have the option of joining Medicare Advantage plans, allowing them to use Medicare funds to purchase private insurance plans that offer extra benefits and lower copayments than the Original Medicare Plan. An estimated 10.2 million seniors have enrolled in Medicare Advantage.

When seniors enroll in Medicare Advantage plans, they often drop Medigap policies because Medigap plans won't pay deductibles, copayments or other cost-sharing under the Medicare health plan. The switch slashes Medigap revenues – and, simultaneously impacts AARP royalties from Medigap insurance.

However, Sec. 1161 of the House bill would slash payments to Medicare Advantage health plans used by 20 percent of seniors and cause them to lose some benefits, including vision and dental coverage.

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, one of the leading health-care policy organizations in the country, told WND's Radio America AARP saw that it would lose revenue if it didn't stop the Medicare Advantage programs.

"The House bill would dramatically cut money out of Medicare Advantage programs, forcing people to need the Medigap policies that are such a big cash cow for the AARP," she said.

"Seniors are going to have higher costs in Medicare. Because of the cuts in Medicare, they are going to have ever more need for these Medigap policies. So the AARP, therefore, will be able to make even more money off of us," Turner explained. "The legislation both kills competition that the AARP has with these Medicare Advantage programs, and it boosts the number of people who need the Medigap insurance because Medicare is going to become an even more deficient program than it is now if you take half a trillion dollars out of it."

Following the money trail

According to the AARP website, the group promises seniors it will be a "voice in Washington and in your state, representing you on issues like Medicare, Social Security and consumer safety."
But the majority of the money AARP collects doesn't come from its annual $16 membership dues.

AARP 2008 revenues (in thousands)

AARP's 2008 consolidated financial statements reveal the organization earns far more income from selling supplementary insurance to members than it takes in from yearly member fees.

The group received nearly $653 million in royalties from private insurance companies that sold products referred by AARP in 2008. It also received an additional $120 million for the ads placed in its publications.

By contrast, AARP collected $249 million in membership dues last year.

While the organization claims to represent almost 40 million Americans over age 50 – nearly as many members as the U.S. Roman Catholic Church – the group has been accused of inflating that number by automatically giving spouses and "domestic partners" free memberships. In reality, $249 million in annual dues would indicate members who actually sought and paid for memberships in 2008 may have numbered closer to 15.6 million.

AARP's federal funding

AARP is a private, nonprofit group, but the AARP 2008 annual report shows that of the $1.1 billion in revenue AARP received last year $90 million came from a variety of grants, including a substantial amount of federal aid. Its two largest grant programs offer tax counseling for the elderly and job training for low-income seniors.

According to a National Legal and Policy Center report titled, "How the Federal Government Subsidizes AARP," written by NLPC Director of Policy John Carlisle, AARP administers the federal funds through its the AARP Foundation, a 501(c)3 charity, because AARP is designated as a 501(c)4 that's ineligible for federal funds.

"The AARP Foundation is a legally distinct organization that theoretically operates independently of AARP," Carlisle explained. "It has its own board of directors and staff and can engage in fundraising activities to advance its particular public policy agenda. However, the foundation works so closely with AARP that the two entities are barely indistinguishable."

According to the report, the AARP Foundation is located in the same building as AARP, where employees work "practically side-by-side with lobbying staff" – and the AARP Foundation's second largest source of income is AARP.

In a March 2001 letter to the Department of Health and Human Services on federal aid, the AARP Foundation reported receiving money from the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, according to NLPC.

A 2008 donor list includes mention of "institutional support" from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor.

"[I]t's outrageous that taxpayers are being used to advance [AARP's] liberal agenda to expand government and thwart Social Security reform," Carlisle contends. "Ending federal subsidies to AARP would put an end to the unjust practice of publicly funding a highly partisan and controversial interest group."

Left-leaning activism and campaign contributions

Former President George W. Bush attempted to reform Social Security through the use of private retirement accounts

in 2005. His plan sought to permit workers to redirect 4 percent of their Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts that would invest in mutual funds and other securities.

But AARP reacted to Bush's proposal by slamming its members with mass mailings and spending $5 million on full-page advertisements in 50 newspapers and an additional $5 million on print ads opposing Bush's plan.

With its nearly 3,000 chapters, AARP attended congressional town-hall meetings to counter Bush's proposal. The group also targeted seniors in its magazine and official bulletin, delivering it to 22 million U.S. households.

Only three months after beginning the lobbying campaign, AARP reported that 535 members of Congress were blasted with at least 460,000 calls in opposition to Bush's plan.

"AARP won the battle," Carlisle wrote. "Due largely to its multi-million dollar effort as well as considerable legislative lobbying, AARP succeeded in undermining support for private accounts in just a few months."

But AARP's Left-leaning activism didn't end there.

According to NLPC, AARP combated tax cuts during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It also fought the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 and helped the Clinton administration defeat a balanced budget amendment in 1995.


A 2006 AARP Impact Award goes to Harry Belafonte

In 2006, AARP honored singer and activist Harry Belafonte with its Impact Award for doing "something extraordinary to make the world a better place." Shortly afterward, Belafonte, a Hugo Chavez supporter, called President George W. Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."

While AARP bills itself as a nonpartisan group that does not support, oppose or contribute to any candidates or political parties, AARP's executives and employees overwhelmingly support Democrats.


President Obama with AARP CEO A. Barry Rand (left) and AARP President Jennie Chin Hansen (left) during AARP's July 28 tele-town hall on health care (White House photo by Pete Souza)

AARP CEO Barry Rand, is a strong supporter of President Obama, and federal records show he contributed $8,900 to Obama's campaign committees in 2008. According to Federal Election Commission databases, Rand has given $15,900 to Democratic campaign committees since 1995.

Likewise, AARP executive John Killpack gave $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee and $4,350 to Obama's campaign. AARP strategy consultant Joseph Liu gave $2,300 to Obama's campaign and an additional $2,300 to Obama's victory fund.

A search of campaign contributions by AARP executives and employees reveals they overwhelmingly gave to Obama's campaign and Democrats during the 2008 election cycle – by a ratio of 14 workers to one.

According to those records, the following are recipients of reported contributions exceeding $200 from 75 AARP executives and employees during the 2008 election cycle:


Democratic Party and/or Democrats for Congress: $15,600

John Edwards: $250

Hillary Clinton: $7,350

Barack Obama: $36,556

Fred Thompson: $1,000

Republican Party: $871

Rudy Giuliani: $1,150

John McCain: $1,550

In its March/April 2003 magazine, AARP honored billionaire George Soros as one of its 50 "top innovators" in a "Fearless 50" article. Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America reported that while the list featured a few conservatives, it was "top heavy with liberal luminaries."
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, blasted AARP in an interview with the Hill just days ago.

"AARP is one of the most liberal organizations in Washington, D.C.," Boehner said. "Obviously, most seniors aren't aware of that."

Gun-control advocacy

Some opponents claim AARP supports gun control. AARP declared in its 2007 policy book, "Congress should eliminate gaps in and strengthen enforcement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other federal gun laws."

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required federal background checks on purchasers of handguns.

AARP 2007 policy book promotes strengthened enforcement of federal gun laws

In a 2001 letter to a constituent from AARP legislation and public policy Director John Rother, AARP outlined its pro-gun control position (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3).

Also, in a Dec. 10, 2004, press release, AARP stated:

"AARP believes in the Constitutional right to bear arms. But to make the nation safer, we must do what we can to keep guns out of hands of children and criminals. AARP supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which went into law in 1994 with bi-partisan support, but was allowed to expire this year."

Immigration and migrant workers

AARP also supports entitlements for "migrant workers." In the same Dec. 10, 2004, press release, AARP stated:

"Migrant workers are among the most poorly paid and ill-housed workers in the nation. They often do not qualify for Social Security or income assistance programs. AARP supports efforts to meet the needs, particularly of older and disabled workers, including making them aware of low income assistance programs for which they may be eligible."

In 2004, the Arizona arm of the influential seniors group announced its opposition to Proposition 200, a measure to deny state welfare benefits to illegal aliens. The measure also required state agencies to report illegals to the federal government and voters to show U.S. identification.

In 2008, AARP International hosted a series in which three "experts" in the fields of immigration and aging addressed the topic "Immigration: Challenges, Trends and the Impact on the U.S. Labor Force."

The first speaker, Robert Suro of the School of Journalism at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, was introduced as an expert in the field of immigration. He discussed U.S. demographic trends.

"Immigration is increasingly becoming a function of who we import to fill holes in our labor market," he explained.


The next speaker, Alejandro Garcia, regional representative of the AARP National Policy Council, said an estimated one in six illegal immigrants are employed in long-term care settings.

"Garcia expressed concern about the treatment and welfare of undocumented workers, which are often invisible and unacknowledged," the AARP International executive summary stated. "In his view, we must challenge the notion that they are parasites living off of the wealth of America without contributing; these individuals provide the cheap labor and products that American society demands, including much-needed relief to the shortage of long-term care workers. Many of them pay taxes for services they are not eligible to receive. In spite of their contributions, we have been reluctant to integrate them into society. According to Garcia, this fact has been reflected in the rise in ethnicity-motivated violence against Hispanics and the proliferation of nativist-extremist groups in recent years."

Finally, the last speaker, John Rother, AARP group executive officer of policy and strategy, advocated providing education and "taking advantage of the younger, immigrant workforce."

The AARP International executive summary stated, "AARP has for the most part been a proponent of a universal approach to social issues and public policy, which holds that everybody, regardless of origin, should have the same access to education, opportunities, and laws protecting them from discrimination."

In 2004, AARP partnered with the National Council of La Raza – a group that has promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs and no immigration law enforcement by state and local police – to "educate elderly Hispanics and their families" on the Medicare prescription drug program.

Pro-homosexual agenda

Focus on the Family's Steve Kipp published a 2-page analysis on AARP and what he considers a pro-homosexual agenda.

He notes that by 2004, AARP was openly referring to multiple homosexual activist organizations, referencing a "web exclusive" AARP article written by Randy Hecht, titled "No straight answers."

Kipp wrote that Hecht's article promoted gay sensitivity training sessions that essentially served as "re-education" sessions. A sidebar titled "Sites to see: Organizations and resources for older gays, lesbians" offered the five referred links on AARP's website:


·                  National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

·                  Human Rights Campaign, or HRC. AARP also links to some of HRC's publications and directly links both to the "marriage section" of Human Rights Campaign as well as its elections and members of Congress section.

·                  PFLAG, or Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

·                  SAGE, or Senior Action in a Gay Environment

·                  LGAIN, or Lesbian and Gay Aging Issues Network


AARP hosted a New York gay pride event in 2001 and invited SAGE, or Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders, to host an exhibit, Kipp wrote.


AARP website banner declares, "Pride comes in all ages."

He also reported the following:


·                  AARP's Andrus Foundation provided a matching-funds grant to SAGE in 2002

·                  AARP featured gay pride month on its 2001 and 2002 online calendars.

·                  The group invited homosexual "anti-homophobia" groups to its national annual meeting in Chicago in 2003

·                  AARP Prime Time Radio featured a segment on gay history and segments on "two daddies," and AARP began profiling gay couples in its My Generation magazine

·                  In 2003, AARP openly united with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, or LCCR, established a major "Voices of Civil Rights" multi-media campaign that included a bus tour and website collaboration. The website classifies homosexuality as a "civil rights issue." LCCR was the most prominent signer of a March 1, 2004, open letter to Congress opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.


Kipp wrote that AARP's polling data reveal its differences with its constituency. According to the report, AARP members who are 70 and older are highly conservative on social issues, especially on issues like same-sex marriage.

In 2008, AARP sponsored the SAGE's National Conference on LGBT Aging, declaring that "AARP is paying attention to LGBT needs to minimize discrimination and to ensure equality as people age in America."

Shredding the AARP membership card

According to news reports, at least 60,000 AARP members canceled their memberships from July to August of this year amid anger over the group's position on health care. AARP said the members represented a small percentage of its total membership and that during the same time period, 400,000 people joined AARP and 1.5 million renewed their memberships.

Some members destroyed their AARP cards and switched to the American Seniors Association, the New York Times reported. The alternative organization is offering former AARP members a year of free membership if they send in their torn AARP cards.

AARP has recently announced its endorsement of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, and the accompanying Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act, HR 3961.

Several WND readers have indicated that they will cancel their memberships due to AARP's support of the health-care bill. The following are some comments received in recent days:


·                  The AARP hasn't been my "voice" in a long time.

·                  If anyone has AARP, it's time to find something else.

·                  I called AARP this morning to cancel my membership. It took several tries before I got anything but a busy signal, and then I was on hold for several minutes. As soon as I told the young man I wanted to cancel, he asked if it was because of the health-care issue. I told him it was. I wonder how many other people they lost today.

·                  AARP has sold out its members by endorsing a health-care plan that will only result in higher taxes, worse coverage and more government control over our lives. It's time to draw the line and cut the cord. Hit them in the pocketbook for their disservice to members. They were supposed to have our best interests at heart – not their own. Their conflict of interest deserves to be repaid.


As WND reported, the American Family Association, or AFA, warned in August that AARP launched a "huge and costly" television ad campaign in support of the health-care plan proposed by President Obama.

A video of part of the AARP effort, which the AFA described as "scare tactics," is here:

Now AFA has renewed its call for AARP constituents to cancel their memberships due to the group's endorsement of the Democrats' health "reform," claiming the organization no longer represents the best interests of the elderly.

"The AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors," AFA said in a statement, "but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets."

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'
Ex–Reagan adviser: Colin Powell among those who argued against line in famous speech

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Reagan's role in stopping 'cancer' of communism
Rep. Rohrabacher: Cold War could not have ended without ex-president's passion, persistence

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

'Fines and jail time' for failing to buy insurance 
GOP's Camp rips 'breathtaking' tax hikes of $730 billion in health-care bill

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

What's ahead for health-care bill in Senate? 
GOP's Johanns: Legislation 'collapses under its own weight' of taxes, spending

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
GOP 'couldn't counter' Pelosi's pro-life surprise 
Rep. King explains reasons for choosing health-care vote over own son's wedding

Barack Obama's America: High Unemployment to Last for "Years"


It's part of the Democrat plan to empower government.



AFP: Unemployment to Dog US for Years
WSJ: Confessions of an Obamacare Backer


President Obama Refuses to Call
Ft. Hood Massacre an Act of Terror


A contrast with his condemnation of Cambridge cops.



S&L: Obama's ''Empathy'' for Terrorists
Parody: Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome


Where are "Moderate" Muslims?


Why don't they turn in "radicals" of their community?


Timeline: Hasan's Open Radicalism


This guy was out in the open screaming, "Notice me!"



Lifson: Reframing the Ft. Hood Massacre
LAT: Ft. Hood Killer was on US Radar


War Too "Expensive" for Obama


Suddenly this guy is worried about spending money?


Nevermind, the Economy is Fine


If it's not covered on the news, is it really happening?


Bill Clinton Lies to Senate Dems


Bill Clinton pressures Democrats to pass Obamacare.



PPP: Interesting Health Care Numbers


Will Obamacare Be Constitutional?


Our legal eagles are considering this very question now.


World Wildlife Fund Exploits Children in Propaganda Video


Liberals use children to perpetuate the climate hoax.