COMMENT:  As the old song goes, "And the days dwindle down to a precious few...". Just a few days remain for everyone to make their voices heard in no uncertain terms.

ACTION:  Tennesseans go HERE to send your congressman an email. Go HERE to find phone numbers (even better than email).
Out-of-state subscribers:  First scroll to the end of this email to see if your congressman is on the target list compiled by AmeriPAC. If he or she is not, the go HERE to find contact information for your congressman.

1. President Launches Last Push on Health-Care Overhaul

The president vowed to rally Americans and wavering lawmakers alike. White House aides said a pair of trips next week will be followed by a stream of public and private lobbying. The White House wants final votes by month's end.

President Obama outlines his three-part proposal for health care reform in an address at the White House. Courtesy Fox News. 

"At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem," Mr. Obama told a crowd of white-coated doctors and nurses in the East Room, where a year ago he started the drive for the legislation.

With polls showing that the legislation is unpopular and congressional Democrats bracing for big losses in this fall's elections, the president urged them to ignore the politics. "I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right," he said. "Let's get it done."

Democrats and the White House are balancing high risks and rewards. Passing the health overhaul would fulfill a decades-old Democratic dream, bringing insurance to some 30 million Americans, and represent the greatest expansion of coverage since Medicare was created in 1965. But if the public judges the overhaul harshly, it is likely to cost some Democrats their seats, and the party's majority in the House could be at risk.

The White House argues that, despite the negative poll numbers, Americans will like the measure if it becomes law, since the focus then could shift from the legislative process to the measure's impact. Polling does find stronger support for the bill's individual provisions than for the package as a whole.

Mr. Obama Wednesday also highlighted a handful of Republican ideas used in the legislation. Republicans dismissed the gesture as insufficient.

"You can't add a couple of Republican sprinkles on the top of a 2,700-page bill and claim that it's bipartisan," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio).

Rejecting Republican calls to start again, the president said that given the "honest and substantial differences between the parties," there was no point. "Everything there is to say about health care has been said," he said to laughter, "and just about everybody has said it."

For the first time, the president explicitly called on Congress to use a procedural technique that will let the Senate give its final approval with a simple majority vote. He didn't use the word for that technique—"reconciliation"—but characterized the process as a way of calling a simple "up or down vote" that has been used for big bills before.

Republicans say the reconciliation process was never intended for such major legislation. "History is clear: Big legislation always requires big majorities," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on the floor Wednesday.

Democrats need to approve the changes in the Senate through reconciliation because they no longer have 60 Senate votes necessary to end a standard debate, due to the loss last month of the Massachusetts seat long held by the late Edward Kennedy. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs downplayed the significance of the reconciliation measure, calling it a set of "technical corrections" to the original Senate measure. The reconciliation version contains some significant differences from the Senate bill, including taxes on the wealthy and lower levies on high-value health-insurance plans.

Under the Democratic plan, the process would work like this: First, the House would vote on the bill that the Senate approved in late December. House leaders hope to pass both that Senate bill, and then the reconciliation package, by March 17. After that, the Senate would need to pass the reconciliation bill. By month's end, Democrats hope, the measure would go to the president to be signed into law.

The final push by Mr. Obama amounts to a critical test of his powers of persuasion. Democrats could face a tough decision, balancing the risk of passing potentially unpopular legislation against the risk of inaction and the stigma of having labored for more than a year to produce nothing. Democratic leaders say lawmakers who already voted yes once will be attacked no matter what, but will be in better shape politically if they have something to show for it.

White House aides vowed the president would use all tactics at his disposal to rally support. That includes speeches around the country, starting with a trip to Philadelphia on Monday, media interviews and direct communication with supporters. Read more here.

3. Hatch: Biden Will ‘Go Down in History as a Real Dolt’ If He Over-Rules Senate Parliamentarian and Lets The Dems Pass Health Care Without 60 Votes
Thursday, March 04, 2010
By Christopher Neefus

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that Vice President Joe Biden would “go down in history as a real dolt” if he used his power as president of the Senate to overrule the Senate parliamentarian on the legitimacy of procedural tactics that could allow the Democrats to enact their health-care reform bill without getting the normally required 60 votes in the Senate.
 
Because the Democrat caucus in the Senate no longer has 60 members with which to end debate on a bill (and prevent a Republican filibuster), it is being reported that the Democrats may attempt to pass changes to their original health care bill with just 51 votes through a process called reconciliation.
 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

In the entire health care debate, among all the competing lawmakers, politicians, experts and pundits, there's just one person who has seen things from both sides of the political aisle. That is Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, who was elected as a Democrat in 2008 and was part of the House Democratic caucus until last Dec. 22, when he switched sides to become a Republican. (Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter doesn't count, because he switched parties in April 2009, before the current health care debate got underway.)

Given Griffith's unique perspective -- he is also a doctor, with 30 years' experience as an oncologist -- perhaps he has some insight into why the White House and his former Democratic allies in Congress continue to press forward on a national health care bill despite widespread public opposition.

It's gotten personal, Griffith says. "You have personalities who have bet the farm, bet their reputations, on shoving a health care bill through the Congress. It's no longer about health care reform. It's all about ego now. The president's ego. Nancy Pelosi's ego. This is about personalities, saving face, and it has very little to do with what's good for the American people."

Conflicts driven by personal feelings can lead to self-destructive outcomes. Ask Griffith whether Speaker Pelosi, his old leader, would accept losing Democratic control of the House as the price for passing the health care bill, and he answers quickly. "Oh yeah. This is a trophy for the speaker, it's a trophy for several committee chairs, and it's a trophy for the president." It does not seem to matter that if Democrats lose the House, the speaker will no longer be speaker, the chairmen will no longer be chairmen, and the president will be significantly weakened.

As Griffith sees his former colleagues, Democratic leaders have become so consumed with the idea of achieving the historical goal of a national health care system that they are able to explain away the scores of opinion polls over the last six months that show people solidly opposed to the Democratic proposal.

The polls are wrong, they say. Or the polls are contradictory. Or the polls actually show that people love the health care plan. And even if the polls are right, and people hate the plan, real leaders don't govern by following the polls. So just pass the bill.

That's easy for Democrats like Pelosi, who occupy safe seats. Not so for dozens of moderate House Democrats whose votes are required for passage, but who face likely defeat for it. "I don't think there are that many moderate or conservative Democrats who want to be sacrificial representatives," says Griffith. Read more here.

Air Force Retracted Invitation for Conservative Leader to Speak at Prayer Luncheon After He Criticized Obama's Position on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Friday, February 26, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (FRC photo)

COMMENT:  So much for 'tolerance'.  Same-sex marriage supporters will not be satisfied until these relationships are legal and the sexual behavior is protected, supported and validated through public policy.  Now it is being reported that the judge hearing the court case on Prop 8 in California is homosexual.  No wonder I have been receiving emails about how that case is being handled. I encourage you to pray about the case and the people involved in passing Prop 8 as they are harassed.  The outcome could impact the whole country!!

The Elephant in the Room: No way to preach tolerance

Opponents of same- sex marriage have faced persecution in California.

The reaction of some Prop 8 opponents - the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance - was swift and fierce. They moved to harass and persecute Prop 8 supporters.

Groups such as the misnamed "Californians Against Hate" published blacklists of Prop 8 backers that included supporters' names and addresses. Prop 8 advocates became the target of harassing protests, phone calls, e-mails, and mailings.

A flier distributed in one town featured a photo of one Prop 8 backer, his name, the amount of his donation, and the name of his (Catholic) church. Next to his photo was the word "Bigot."

Some Prop 8 campaign donors had to resign from their jobs or take leaves of absence to protect their employers and colleagues. Top officials of California Musical Theatre and the Los Angeles Film Festival were forced to resign just because they had donated in support of Prop 8.

That wasn't all. These warriors for the oppressed also made a point of going after pro-Prop 8 Mormons and their church.

While this ugliness was exploding across California, the anti-Prop 8 forces also ran to the state courts to overturn the people's will. They claimed - get this - that the amendment to the state constitution violated the state constitution.

But not even a state Supreme Court with a habit of rewriting the constitution would accept this illogical absurdity. It upheld Prop 8.

If the reliably progressive activists on the state Supreme Court couldn't be counted on, where to go? How about going before a sympathetic federal district court judge in San Francisco to challenge Prop 8 as violating the U.S. Constitution?

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has accepted the Prop 8 opponents' assertion that constitutionality hinges on the attitudes of voters, not legal arguments and precedents. So he has consistently ruled in their favor, turning this trial into another instance of harassment of Prop 8 supporters.

Consider Walker's precedent-breaking rulings in the trial, which began last month:

He decided that Prop 8 proponents should be subjected to questioning about their personal beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

He ordered Prop 8 proponents to disclose private communications about never-used campaign messages.

He directed the Prop 8 campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages on campaign strategy.

He refused not only to demand any of these things of the proposition's opponents, but also to so much as rule on a motion related to that issue.

He subjected one proponent to humiliation for his concerns about homosexuality, as written in private e-mails to friends - in Chinese.

He allowed witnesses for opponents of the proposition to air their "expert" opinions that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel bad when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 echoed historical bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.
Read more here.

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment   [Ed Whelan]

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions: 

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality. Read more here.

'Gay' judge asked to quit Prop. 8 case
Attorney challenges claim Walker's lifestyle 'nonissue' in California court challenge

An activist attorney is challenging the claim that the reported homosexual lifestyle of the judge deciding the constitutionality of California's limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is a "nonissue."

The San Francisco Chronicle reported politicians and lawyers in the city who have dealt with U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker confirmed Walker has never tried to promote or hide his orientation.

The newspaper said a state senator, Mark Leno, who has proposed several times the authorization of same-sex "marriage," described the judge's background as a nonissue.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, disagrees.

"This is no different than having an avid gun collector preside over a Second Amendment case," he said today, "or a frequent user of medical marijuana deciding the legality of medical marijuana."

"Even his fellow judges on the notoriously liberal 9th circuit have been forced to step in and overturn more than one of his inexplicable rulings relative to this case. Based on his demonstrated misbehavior, there's no reason to believe anything will change," Barber said.

As WND has reported, the dispute over the constitutional definition of marriage adopted by voters in the state has implications across the nation.

The case is petitioning a federal court to overturn not just a law, but a constitutional amendment passed by the people and affirmed by the state's Supreme Court. A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

The law is being defended by private attorneys, because California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, both of whom are named as defendants in the suit, have refused to defend the amendment.Read more here.

Defense Calls First Witness at ‘Gay Marriage’ Trial
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
By Lisa Leff, Associated Press
San Francisco (AP) - The federal laws that prevent gays from serving openly in the military and the government from recognizing same-sex relationships are examples of "legally enforced discrimination," a political scientist testified in a federal trial challenging California's ban on gay marriages.
 
The assertion by Claremont McKenna College professor Kenneth Miller came as he was being cross-examined Monday on his testimony that gays in California enjoy substantial political power as a result of nearly unanimous support from high-ranking elected officials, labor unions, newspapers, corporations and progressive religious groups.
 
"Is there any other minority you can identify that is discharged from the military when they are doing a perfectly good job just because somebody discovers their status?" asked David Boies, a lawyer for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the state's gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.
 
"I'm not aware of any," Miller answered.
 
But Miller resisted Boies' persistent attempts to get him to put Proposition 8 in the same category as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Boies asked Miller if he agreed with another political scientist with whom he had co-authored a book chapter that Proposition 8 is inherently discriminatory.
 
"It's differential treatment. Whether it's legally discriminatory, I don't know," Miller said.
 
The question of whether the gay rights movement constitutes a potent political force is central to efforts by lawyers seeking to challenge the state's same-sex marriage ban on grounds that it unlawfully targeted a disadvantaged group.
 
Miller said one indication of the gay rights movement's clout in California was that neither Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor any other statewide office holders endorsed Proposition 8. But perhaps the best measure of the movement's strength was the $43 million amassed to defeat the gay marriage ban in 2008, he said. That was $3.4 million more than initiative backers raised. Read more here.

COMMENT: It is encouraging to finally get some public recognition for something we have known to be true. Just one example from here in Tennessee:

Blount Nurses for for Health Education, Blount County, TN, Abstinence Education Program:
1999 --17.7 pregnancies per 1000
2004 -- 8.7 pregnancies per 1000
(TN Department of Health)

Survey of U.S. Parents and Teens:  Nearly all of the adults (91%) and teens (94%) surveyed believe that it is important for teens to be given a strong message from society that they should not have sex until they are at least out of High schools. See what parents prefer HERE.  What are they teaching at YOUR student's school??

Speaking of sex education and activity -- Supporters of Gardasil are still pushing this 'vaccine' on our young daughters - go HERE for important information -  now  they are after our sons too!  This is perfectly ridiculous:

New Childhood Vaccines Schedules Released
Boys should get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to protect them against genital warts, and all children should receive the H1N1 vaccine to guard against swine flu, according to updated guidelines on childhood and teen vaccines.
The new vaccine schedules -- issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Family Physicians -- also recommend using combination vaccines whenever possible. Read more here.
 

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010; A01

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After falling for more than a decade, the numbers of births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing.

The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. Instead, the White House is launching a $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work -- a program the administration on Monday proposed expanding to $183 million.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex."

The study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully designed approach comparing it with several alternative strategies and following subjects for an extended period of time, considered the kind of study that produces the highest level of scientific evidence.

"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."

Longtime critics of the approach praised the study, saying it provides strong evidence that such programs can work and might merit taxpayer support.

"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.

"No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention," said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program is equivalent to many other well-designed abstinence curricula that are thorough, tailor their messages to students' ages and provide detailed information.

"For our critics to use marriage as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004. Read more here.

Great slide show HERE.

Global Warming Is Frozen Over
By Phyllis Schlafly

Whether or not the groundhog sees his shadow on February 2, there's no denying that January put into a deep freeze the claims of crisis by global warming alarmists. Frigid temperatures destroyed fruit and coral in Florida, and snow fell on Al Gore's palatial home in normally warmer Tennessee.

The 20,000 delegates and journalists who gathered in Copenhagen to discuss climate change had to spend some of their energy hiding their embarrassment about the revelation of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit, which is an official collaborator of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Those disclosures told the world about some scientists' willingness to suppress climate-change data and rig the process in order to pretend there is consensus among scientists about global warming, to ostracize contrary views, and to promote their globalist agenda.

Obama's State of the Union demand for cap-and-trade legislation fell on deaf ears. Maybe that's because Obama is on record as promising that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be reduced to our 1910 level of emissions, when we had a population of 92 million.

Such a massive reduction in our energy use would mean lowering our standard of living to 19th century levels. The only Republican Senator willing to work with the Democrats on climate change legislation, Lindsey Graham, admitted that "the cap-and-trade bills in the House and Senate are going nowhere."

Even the New York Times admitted that "prospects grew dimmer" for the global warming advocates because Scott Brown repudiated cap-and-trade in his winning campaign in Massachusetts. Some incumbents who voted for the House bill find that challengers are scoring points with the public by attacking that vote.

January ended with a cold blast reportedly from Osama bin Laden blaming the United States for not halting what he called "the global warming crisis" and for failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol. He wants to punish us by getting the global economy to abandon the U.S. dollar.

What was to have been the baptism of the major nations into the religion of global warming in Copenhagen, Denmark, turned out to be a dry run. President Obama came and left empty handed, Communist China refused to limit emissions, and the Third World dictators didn't get the $100 billion handouts they expected.

At the close of the Copenhagen confab, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus made this same point about global warming. "I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon," he said, "global warming is not a matter of temperature. Global warming is a new religion, a religion of climate change. . . .

"This religion tells us that people are responsible for very small increases in temperatures, and they should be punished. . . . I'm absolutely convinced that the very small global warming we are experiencing is the result of natural causes. It's a cyclical phenomenon in the history of the Earth.

"The role of man is very small, almost negligible. Politicians, their fellow travelers, and the media understood that this is a good topic to take on, because talking about the world in the years 2050, 2080, and 2200 is an excellent way to escape from current reality."

President Klaus sent a message to the world: Do not dictate to humanity how to live based on an "irrational ideology." Man's natural ingenuity can create new technologies that will lessen any impact that mankind has on the planet's environment.

Vaclav Klaus concluded: "I lived in a Communist world where politicians told us what to do. I don't think politicians or presidents should tell business what to do. That is always a mistake."

Nevertheless the propaganda continues. A father's letter to the editor of the Education Reporter described what his 5th-grade daughter Lily, at Three Oaks Elementary, Fort Myers, Florida, said she had learned in school. "I would rather just shoot myself in the head because it would be a less painful death than to suffer and die from global warming."

Thousands of public school students have been shown Al Gore's propaganda movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Another movie called "The Story of Stuff" is also shown in classrooms to teach students the evils of human consumption.

The movie projects a very negative view of capitalism and paints human use of natural resources as "exploitation," which is supposed to be synonymous with trashing the planet. The movie accuses us of chopping down the trees, blowing up mountains to get the metals inside, using up all the water, and wiping out the animals.

The main cause of unemployment and poverty is the lack of enough energy. Rather than expanding government to limit energy, we should be increasing the use of energy to eradicate hardship.

Further reading:

• Global Warming

See: We are 'one vote away' in the House.

NEWS FLASH:
Despite his drawbacks, don't think Brown's election made a real difference?
Senator Says Deal Was Reached on Pro-Abortion Health Care Before Brown Win
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In one of the first concrete confirmations that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts disrupted the effort to approve the pro-abortion health care bill, a top senator says a deal was in place to approve it but Brown's election prevented it from going forward. Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory. But with Brown becoming the 41st vote in the Senate against the bill and for a filibuster, the latest revelation shows how agonizingly close Democrats came to passing a final healthcare bill in time for President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Harkin, who was present for the talks, told The Hill “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn't get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, January 15. Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill. Now, Democratic lawmakers have since turned their attention to passing a comprehensive -- instead of a scaled-down -- healthcare bill, using the reconciliation process to make changes and approving smaller bills as a lead-in to that controversial idea.

Speaking for Scott Brown - He was sworn in yesterday so it is offically Senator Brown   -- his campaign produced an excellent ad called The Massachusetts Miracle.  It is worth watching.

If your Congressman is Lincoln Davis, Jim Cooper, Bart Gordon, John Tanner or Steve Cohen, go HERE to send your congressman a message.
Out of State Subscribers go HERE to find your Congressman.


COMMENT:  Despite the fact that the American people do not see health care as a priority President Obama and congressional leaders are still  promoting  his health care. While most folks view the election of  Scott Brown as a clear 'message' on the Obama-Reid-Pelosi health care effort, the administration evidently has not completely received the  message.  Talk about being 'tone deaf'!  I am very happy to report that  time has proven that my friend Dr. Allen Quist, a Republican candidate for congress in Minnesota, was EXACTLY  correct when he exposed the 'marriage penalty' in the health care bill. 
Read The Marriage Penalty HERE.
In addition, the priorities for the American people are Economy, Jobs and Terrorism, not ObamaCare.

Senate Health Care Bill Gives $7 Billion to Health Centers, Could Fund Abortions
A new analysis of the Senate health care bill finds a section of the manager's amendment Senate Leader Harry Reid added to the bill that could find billions of dollars going to abortion funding. The little noticed provision could open a new door to direct taxpayer funding of abortions.During the closing stages of the Senate’s deliberations on its health care bill, HR 3590, Reid got his lengthy manager's amendment added to the measure. Read more HERE.

Top Democrat Working With White House For Abortion Funding in Health Care
Rep. Diana DeGette, the Colorado Democrat who leads the caucus of pro-abortion lawmakers, says she has been talking with the White House and others about how to resolve the abortion differences in the two bills.
The House measure contains the Stupak amendment that effectively bans government-funding of abortions under the health care plan -- consistent with current federal law under the Hyde amendment.
The Senate bill contains the Nelson-Reid deal that contains six different pro-abortion threats and forces taxpayers to pay for abortions. Read more HERE.

1. Scrap It – The most obvious option is for the Senate not to take any action on the House version of ObamaCare and the House to do the same with the Senate version of health care reform. Starting over on health care reform would consist of taking smaller bites of ObamaCare and working with Republicans to pass elements that have bipartisan support.

2. Pass It ASAP (also known as the Thelma and Louise Strategy) – The most dangerous option for liberals is to forge ahead with ObamaCare and attempt a strong-arm strategy to get it passed within the next few weeks. It is possible for the House to take up the Senate bill in an attempt to pass something this year. The House would need a simple majority and the bill would go to the President’s desk. Reconciliation could be used as a means to get a technical corrections measure to the Senate requiring only a simple majority to pass. This would effectively be the Congress doubling down on ObamaCare and ignoring the will of the American people.

3. Lame Duck Strategy – Wait until the 2010 elections are over and jam everything into a reconciliation bill. There may be so many members who have lost their jobs, they may be willing to pass something during the post election time when they have already lost their jobs. Source HERE.

Polls finds growing fears on health bill
WASHINGTON - Fears about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul increased significantly in December, according to a new poll released as the legislation's future hangs in doubt.

The monthly poll out Tuesday from the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation measured consumers' views of how a remake would affect their own finances and access to care, among other things.

It was conducted between Nov. 28 and Dec. 20, in the run-up to the Senate's Christmas Eve passage of sweeping health care legislation that brought Congress closer than ever before to enacting a comprehensive revamp of the nation's medical system. That effort was cast into turmoil last week when a GOP victory in Massachusetts' special Senate election robbed Democrats of their filibuster-proof supermajority.
The survey shows a majority are following the health care debate in Congress — and their trepidation is evidently growing as they do.

Nonetheless, people still think that Obama should address the issue as part of dealing with the nation's economic slump, although the percentage of people who say that it's very important for Obama to do so has slipped from 56 percent in the survey conducted in September, to 49.5 percent in this month's report.

Among the poll's other findings:

COMMENT:  It is about military readiness and effectiveness, not "civil rights'.  There is no constitutional right to serve in the military and the military is no place for social experimentation.  Opporutnity for military service is limited in a number of ways. Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way. Making these changes could result in resistance in the ranks, hurt morale, damage trust and unit cohesion, affect recruitment and one study showed it would impact re-enlistments. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”


1.  DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops
2. Iraq Veteran Leads 'Don't Ask' Push

Go HERE to send your Tennessee Congressman a message.
Out of State Subscribers go HERE to find your congressman.

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued a statement.
[Elaine is a personal friend and has been working in this field for many years.]

1. DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops

 In response to a plan that an AP report said would be presented before the Senate Armed Services Committee today by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10).  The testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.

“Such a plan would create an incentive for “third parties” to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay.  Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else.  This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of ‘consistency,’ weakens discipline across the board.

“Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: ‘The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.’  Finding #10 reads, ‘Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.’ 

Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: ‘The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.”  There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.”

Donnelly continued, “The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not.  Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.”

 Background:

This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates peculiar comment about more “humane” ways to enforce the 1993 law:
Defining Discipline Down

The idea of finding a more “humane” way to enforce “DADT” began when Air Force Lt. Victor Fehrenbach was “outed” by a “third party,” who turned out to be a young man that Fehrenbach had solicited for sexual activity on a gay website.  The two shared a hot tub, but the younger man accused Fehrenbach of sexual assault in a late-night call to the police.  Fehrenbach cleared himself of the charge—the encounter was consensual—but the process revealed that he was a homosexual and therefore not eligible to be in the service.  (Fehrenbach has allowed himself to be described as an F-15 pilot, but he is actually a weapons systems officer or WSO.)

 Fehrenbach told only part of his story on national television, to the applause of gay activist groups pushing for repeal of the 1993 law.  He was also a guest at the White House during President Obama’s June 2009 “LGBT Equality” month promoting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered cause.  Although Secretary Gates did not mention Fehrenbach by name at the time he was in the news, the aviator’s carefully air-brushed personal story apparently led to the “more humane” comment from Gates.

Shortly thereafter, the Idaho Statesman published a detailed report that told the rest of the story.  CMR requested a copy of the police report and quoted it in the article above.

In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged.  If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable “presumption” of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable.  Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces. 

President Obama is promoting a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces.  A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”  If passed, the law would be retroactive—allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged.  The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

As stated in the statute itself, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.”  Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.

There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military.  CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:

Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military

More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”

The Obama administration's staunchest ally in the uphill fight to allow gays to openly serve in the nation's military is a little-known Democratic congressman named Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran who has written the only legislation that would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions.

Mr. Murphy, a two-term Democrat from Pennsylvania, served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division and was the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress. His bill has 187 co-sponsors, leaving it just 31 votes short of the 218 needed to ensure passage.

"The momentum is clearly on our side," he said in an interview. "It's time for Congress to have the guts to stop turning its back on talented and professional soldiers just because they're gay."

With Defense Secretary Robert Gates heading to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lay out the Pentagon's preparations for a possible repeal of the 16-year-old ban, the long-dormant political battle over the "don't ask, don't tell" provisions is heating up.

But it is far from clear that enough Democrats from moderate or conservative states will want to risk casting a politically sensitive vote in favor of repealing the ban.

Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opposes repealing the ban and has said his full committee won't hold a hearing on Rep. Murphy's bill, complicating its path to a vote.

Mr. Skelton's Senate counterpart, Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, supports eliminating the ban, but some lawmakers have said they are waiting to hear the Pentagon's full recommendations before introducing a bill. Such a step could be months away.

Mr. Gates's appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will mark the first time that senior Pentagon officials lay out their thinking for how the ban could be repealed.

Defense officials and congressional aides said that Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen would announce an internal Pentagon review into the thorny legal and logistical questions that would need to be confronted if Congress repealed the ban, including whether the military would extend marriage and bereavement benefits to the partners of gay service members.

Mr. Gates has made clear in the past that he thinks Congress should move slowly on the issue and give the Defense Department adequate time to prepare for the changes.

Some of the Pentagon's top military officers also oppose lifting the restrictions, at least in the short term.

A senior military official said that Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, believes the ban shouldn't be lifted until the U.S. completes its withdrawal from Iraq.

A second member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, also believes eliminating the "don't ask, don't tell" provisions would harm military readiness, according to military officials familiar with his thinking.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an advocacy group that favors the ban, echoed the concerns of many Republicans, saying that allowing gays to serve openly would threaten the military's ability to recruit and retain talented soldiers.

"Nothing can or should be done that could harm military readiness in wartime," she said. Read more here.

COMMENT:  As I understand it, the census started this week in Alaska, so it will be coming to us in the next weeks and months. The US Constitution calls for 'counting' the people every ten years.  This process is very important because after these numbers come in, we will proceed with re-districting.  There is no way to over emphasize the importance of this process. Districts are drawn up based on population -- the goal is to put a nearly equal number of people in each state house, state senate and congressional district. To see current house, senate and congressional districts, go HERE.  In a ten year period, the demographics of a district can change dramatically so the outcome of this process will greatly influence the politics of the state for the next ten years.

Official 2010 Census

How the 2010 Census is Different - Population Reference Bureau

January 25, 2010

Exclusive: The 2010 Census, the Constitution and You

The Editors

56 Percent of Americans Say Abortion is ‘Morally Wrong,’ Poll Finds
Friday, January 22, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

COMMENT: If anyone can read the article below and watch the video HERE, and not believe that we have gotten so open minded that our brains have fallen out, there may be no hope of convincing them that we ARE in danger!!
Don't actually believe that our brains have fallen out?  Check this out: Controversial Islamic Speaker Welcomed at Ft. Hood. and State Department Clears Way for 2 Muslim Scholars to Return to U.S.
Now we have 'From Osama to Obama,' Bin Laden Delivers New Threats, in addition,
"Britain raised its international terrorism threat level to 'severe'".  There IS a danger!
If you have not yet ordered Muslim Mafia, you can click on the book to do so.

Additional information on Ibrahim Hooper:
CAIR: 'Moderate' friends of terror
CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper and radical Islam
CAIR's Honest Ibe Hooper caught boasting about getting Saudi money -- which he has denied getting in public

Want to contact Fox News? Click HERE


Attention-getting excerpts from article below:
"At no time during any of the four appearances by CAIR leaders did Fox bring up the fact that the FBI has cut off ties to CAIR or that the Justice Department has blacklisted the group as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator – information critical to the public's understanding of CAIR's possible bias in delinking terrorism from Islam and arguing against Islamic terrorist profiling."

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper said in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

"Do not think about your contributions (to CAIR) as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return," former CAIR chairman Ahmed told finance ministers in Dubai, according to the Arab press. "The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for 50 years" if a sufficiently Arab-friendly environment can be created in America to allow sheiks to buy up key U.S. assets, he said.

"We own the media," CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper privately brags, according to a source currently working inside the aggressive Islamist lobby group.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week invited the TV-savvy Hooper on his show to debate passenger profiling, the second guest appearance by the CAIR spokesman in a month. At the end of the segment, O'Reilly thanked Hooper and called him a "stand-up guy," sending shockwaves through the conservative blogosphere.

CAIR is no ordinary guest. The government has blacklisted it as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator, and the group remains under criminal suspicion by the FBI, which has cut off outreach ties to it.

FBI agents arresting CAIR founding director Ghassan Elashi in 2002.

Congress and the IRS also are investigating CAIR, which has had no fewer than 15 executives and board members convicted or implicated in terror probes, including its founding chairman.

In addition, CAIR's very existence as a legitimate corporation has been challenged in a lawsuit in federal court.

It turns out that the same billionaire Saudi prince who owns a major stake in Fox's parent company also bankrolls Washington-based CAIR. And sensitive State Department records reveal Hooper – despite his repeated public denials – has personally solicited cash from the prince and other members of the ruling Saudi royal family during recent trips

The common financial bond between Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and Fox, and between bin Talal and CAIR, raises questions not only about Fox News's independence, but about the truthfulness of CAIR's top spokesman.

Hooper repeatedly has denied that CAIR receives foreign support, insisting it's a "grass-roots" nonprofit organization. In CAIR press releases, Hooper has stated unequivocally: "We do not support directly or indirectly or receive support from any overseas group or government."

However, smoking-gun video footage obtained during a recent six-month covert investigation of CAIR puts the lie to Hooper's claims.

1. World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

2. Global warming alarmism falling apart in light of 'Climategate' and IPCC errors
By E. Calvin Beisner
Jan 22, 2010

E. Calvin Beisner

BURKE, Va. (BP)--One of the most alarming warnings in the 2007 Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was that Himalayan glaciers -- on which hundreds of millions of people depend for regular water supply from their annual contraction and recovery -- are in grave danger from global warming. "[I]f the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high," the report said (NOTE (1)).

But to the curious, there was a telltale sign that something might be amiss. The IPCC's rules require that all assertions in its assessment reports be based on published papers in refereed journals. But in this instance, the citation at the end of the sentence was "(WWF, 2005)." "WWF" is the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental advocacy organization that publishes no refereed journal and has a well deserved reputation for exaggerated claims.

As it turns out, "(WWF, 2005)" wasn't the end of the story. As reported this week in TimesOnline in the UK (2), "the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before...." And news stories aren't refereed. Further, this news story was "based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist...." And to make matters worse, "Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was 'speculation' and was not supported by any formal research."

That's not all, though. Hasnain says his "speculation" was based on a report he was bringing to Britain -- a report that was not, and never would be, peer reviewed or published. But even that report didn't say or imply that the glaciers could disappear by 2035. But WWF cited it in a campaign piece in 2005 -- and it was that campaign piece that the IPCC cited as its source. But even the campaign piece didn't suggest that the likelihood of the glaciers' disappearing by 2035 was "very high." That, apparently, was the utterly baseless addition of whoever wrote that part of the IPCC report. In reality, even if the IPCC's predictions about anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) are true, it would take hundreds of years -- not 28 -- for the Himalayan glaciers to disappear, if they ever would.

"If confirmed," TimesOnline continued, "it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research." Well, it is confirmed (3). And it is a serious failure. And there are others. For just three examples, the IPCC wrongly claims that

-- global warming has led to increased economic losses from hurricanes -- citing as support work by Roger Pielke Jr. that actually says the opposite (4).

-- sea level rise accelerated in the late 20th century because of global warming and constitutes a grave threat to low-lying population centers; but in reality the late 20th century had no acceleration in sea level rise (5) and, contrary to widespread claims, low-lying south Pacific island nations like Tuvalu are not endangered by sea level rise, because there has been no sea level rise there during the period in question (6).

-- late-twentieth-century global temperature rise was more rapid than other temperature rises from 1850 onward, giving rise to the assertion that it must be manmade, when the claim rested on what statisticians call an "end point fallacy," and a valid graph of the same data showed no increase in warming rate (7).

COUNTER ARGUMENTS

There is much more, though, to cause thoughtful people to doubt even the best documented of the IPCC's claims about AGW. The claims rest on the assertion that twentieth-century warming was more rapid, and brought global temperature higher, than anything in history. And those claims rest on the reliability of two things: our knowledge of twentieth-century temperatures, and our knowledge of pre-twentieth-century temperatures, with which to compare them. But both of these are highly in doubt. If recent warming was matched in the past, it could just as easily be a repetition of natural warming. And unprecedented warming is an absolutely essential piece of the argument for AGW. Read more here

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.” Read more here.

NEW FLASH:
Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting
MEMPHIS — A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda .
In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.
“I wasn’t insane or post traumatic nor was I forced to do this Act,” Mr. Muhammad said in a two-page, hand-printed note in pencil. The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was “justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad — to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.” Read more here.



















I did not know anything about Rabbi Shifren until I discover his writings.  He has a very interesting bio and is running for the state senate in California, where he sponsored the first annual Conservative Teachers Conference on January 21st. The essay below is very thought provoking and is offered for your consideration. We are seeing around us EVERY DAY the consequences of 'multiculturalism'.

Please see a brief interview with General Jerry Boyken on CBN on this subject HERE.

Multiculturalism Will Bring Us Our Next 9-11
Essay by Rabbi Shifren
 
Let's start by saying what everybody already knows: We will have another terrorist attack in the U.S. We just don't know when or where. What we as Americans are basically asked to do is be guinea pigs in an out-of-control terrorist experiment, where assessments will determine the best way for us to die. How has the greatest, mightiest country on earth been reduced to groveling and bowing down to cut-throat murderers? When did we become apologists for our individual freedoms and Constitution. Our Judeo-Christian heritage?
 
Let's take a walk through memory lane, to those tarnished halls of American academia, where our notions of academic freedom and striving for excellence, have long been discarded.
Since the 60's, our schools have been not only dumbed down, but as a result, we have become a "nation at risk." Listen to what the National Commission on Excellence in Education presented to then-President Reagan in 1983 its landmark study, "A Nation at Risk:"
 
The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people...if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an ACT OF WAR. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves...we have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral disarmament."
 
An act of war? You'd never know it as you romp through the hallways of our schools. It's business as usual as our "teachers' churn out texts and agendas that bash America, Whites, Christians, and anything that smacks of the uniqueness of America, hard work, delayed gratification, honor to our military, sanctity of marriage, accentuating the accomplishments of the individual and rewarding such.
Has anything changed since 1983? How have we learned from our folly, and made good in our schools? Let's fast forward to 1998 and hear what educational experts wrote in a new report, "A Nation Still at Risk."
 
--more than 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without having learned to read at a basic level
--more than 20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic math
--almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not knowing the essentials of US history.
 
Totally aside from the tremendous waste of taxpayer money ( a recent UC Santa Barbara study estimates the drop-out bill due to Californians at $45 billion), we are creating a sub-class that can and will be manipulated by demagogues, preparing them for massive shifts in government control over individual liberties, transforming America into a third-class banana republic. We will march off to our work camps, cheerily singing hymns extolling "hope and change", thereby ending the golden period of America.
 
But the question remains: Wither those disaffected youth, drop outs and malcontents, that were deprived of a proper education and robbed of their share in America's bounty by the "multiculturalists" that had wasted the formative years of our students with drivel and Marxist nonsense? Wither those dumbed-down, cast-outs, that sneer at achievement and the praising of the individual over the masses weaned on "cooperative learning?"
 
Several years ago, it came as a shock that a white, suburban teen ran off to Afghanistan, joined the Al Qaeda, and was one of our POW's in Guantanamo Bay. America was shocked! How could he?! How could he!?, was the refrain from the main-stream media. Well, look at the environment the spawned him, and you'll come up with the answers.
Those 60's hippies are now our "elder statesmen". The Michael Ayers prototypes didn't disappear after the Viet Nam War. They continued their seditious talents by infecting a whole generation of youth to hate America--here in our schools.
 
It's a known fact that the incarceration rate for young Blacks is double the national average. What goes on in the jails and prisons of America? More hate, more radical Islam shoved down their throats, more alienation of our institutions and the foundation of our country. But more disturbing is what happens to the alienated inner city youth BEFORE THEY GO TO PRISON. They are set up for failure. ALL races and ethnicities in our legions of educrats will tell you that "inner city youth need special accommodations. They ALL will tell you that the bar may not be raised. They ALL lay a total guilt trip about those individuals that have worked hard to excel and therefore evolve, claiming that the "stacked deck" is the rule for our Black and Hispanic students.
Read more here.
 

COMMENT:  You will not want to miss a word of the very important article and you will want to view a brief video, Sweden in Grip of Islam, HERE.

" I heard it a million times [ at mosques here in the United States ]". [Wafa Sultan, a former Muslim and author of the book " A God Who Hates "] said. "That we are here to spread Islam and eventually to replace the American constitution with Islamic Sharia law."

2009: The Year of Homegrown Jihad

Erick Stakelbeck

 

CHICAGO, Ill. – From the Fort Hood massacre to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner on Christmas day, Islamic jihadists have never been more active in their attempts to attack the U.S.

 

 

Many of the plots were hatched by U.S. citizens – homegrown jihadists.

 

 

Exibit A: Five middle class friends from the Washington, D.C., suburbs: one was a dental student at a local university, all were praised as "good kids" by leaders of their northern Virginia mosque.

 

 

"I have always known these kids as fun loving, career focused children that had a bright future ahead of them," said Mustafa Abu Maryam, youth coordinator of the young men’s mosque in Alexandria, Virginia.

 

I talked with Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club" about the growing threat of homegrown jihad. Click here

for the interview.

 

Now, a good part of that "bright" future may be spent behind bars. The men traveled to Pakistan in November to link up with Islamic terrorist groups and wage jihad against U.S. troops.

 

Their capture by Pakistani authorities capped a full year of terrorist plots, attacks and arrests involving U.S. citizens.

 

Terrorism experts say the rise of homegrown terrorism has left the U.S. more vulnerable to attack than at any time since 9/11.

 

"I see these individuals, these homegrown individuals, as sort of the crown jewel for international terrorist organizations like al Qaeda," Rick Nelson of the Center for Stragic and International Studies said.

 

Indeed, 2009 saw no shortage of American recruits for al Qaeda and its allies:

 

Fort Hood psychiatrist Nidal Hassan contacted an al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen before carrying out his terrorist rampage. Afghan native Najibullah Zazi stands accused of planning major attacks in New York City after involvement with an al Qaeda training camp. Fourteen Somali Americans are under indictment for providing support to an al Qaeda-linked group in Somalia. And two Pakistani Americans in Chicago were charged with seeking to attack targets in Denmark and India. One of those men, David Coleman Headley, traveled to India to scout out targets for the Islamic terror group, Lashkar e-Taiba.

 

The group later struck those targets in the Nov. 2008 Mumbai massacre that killed 166.

 

"Someone who has the ability as a legal U.S. resident to travel fairly freely throughout the world with a passport makes them a very useful tool," Nelson explained. Read more here.

Middle East Myths and Facts:
Myth: America and Islam have “shared hopes” and “common aspirations,” as President Obama has stated many times.

Fact: Islamic religious values and goals are decidedly different from and mostly incompatible with the values and ideals of Western secular society.

Separation of Church and State

Myth: Western democracy and secular government are universal aspirations of all people.

Fact: Secularism and separation of Church and State were solutions to Christianity’s problem of decay from the Dark Ages and internal strife between Protestants and Catholics. Islam succeeded in its first 1,200 years because of reliance on religion, and declined only due to invasion of the West starting in the 1800s. Islamic revival, or “Islamism,” aspires to return to the roots of Islamic success – religious government and law. Therefore, Christianity’s political solutions like “separation of church and state” don’t fit into the Islamic historic experience or Islam’s religious values, where loyalty can only be to God, the sovereign of the world and all mankind.

Future of Iraq and Afghanistan Governments

Myth: Iraqis and Afghans will support their elected, pro-Western secular governments after the U.S. departure.

Fact: In Islam, political authority is derived from religion. While "reform" from the Western point of view means secular democracy, "reform" in the Muslim world means removal of Western influences and return to religious governance. Therefore, secular government has no legitimacy and no basis for loyalty amongst Muslims. Meanwhile, Islamism is the only serious alternative form of government in the Islamic world and meets the aspirations of the vast majority of all Muslims. Islamists are eagerly waiting to fill the balance of power vacuum when the United States withdraws its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S.-sponsored governments will likely collapse within weeks of an American departure.

Two-State Solution for Israel

 

Myth: A two-state solution in the Middle East that creates a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel will bring peace between Israel and Muslim states.

Fact: A Jewish state called Israel located upon former Muslim-conquered land in Palestine was opposed by Muslims on religious grounds from the beginning of Zionism in the early 1900s. Muslim states attempted to eradicate Israel for these reasons in 1948 and 1967, even when they held the territories now in question. In Islam, Jews (Dhimmi) must live under Islamic rule in a state of natural inequality. Therefore, a Jewish political state of any size is unacceptable to Muslims. Even if Israel helps create a Palestinian Arab state within its borders, Islamists will continue an unending jihad to eliminate Israel, which is considered to be the number one target and obstacle to Islamic revival.

Read more here.

COMMENT: While lots of attention is being focused on the Obama-Reid-Pelosi health care debacle, another battle is revving up. One can only hope that Mexico's ambassador is a prophet.  We won this battle in 2007 and we must win it again.

1.  Rep. Gutierrez Introduces Mass Amnesty Bill
2.  Obama to American Workers: Drop Dead
3.  Rhymes With Dumb:  Legalizing Illegals Before They Even Immigrate.
4.  Catholic Bishops Launch New Push for Immigration Reform
5.  Mexico says immigration reform unlikely in 2010

Rep. Gutierrez Introduces Mass Amnesty Bill

Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 4:47 PM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) introduced legislation today that offers amnesty to the nation's estimated 11-18 million illegal aliens. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act (H.R. 4321) would increase annual immigration numbers while putting an end to many of the enforcement mechanisms currently put into place by federal, state and local governments.

Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) is the bill's official sponsor. The bill was introduced with 91 original cosponsors including Rep. Gutierrez.

H.R. 4321 would offer amnesty to all illegal aliens living in the United States at the time of the bill's passage as long as they meet a short list of requirements, including a criminal and security background check and a fine of $500 which will be waved for children and individuals who entered the country before the age of 16. Illegal aliens can then become citizenship by meeting requirements over a six-year period.

The bill would also discontinue E-Verify in lieu of a new employment authorization system. The initial outline of the bill provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association does not offer details of the new system, but Rep. Gutierrez championed a biometrics verification system during a Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing earlier this year. Read more here.

Obama to American workers: Drop dead

By D.A. KING

With the open borders lobby's usual shameless contempt for the intellect of the American people, Gutierrez is calling his bill "Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity."

The 2010 battle for repeating the "one-time" amnesty of 1986 has begun.

Don't expect the legislation to receive nearly as much attention from the media as Tiger Woods' love life. The hope is that we are too busy to remember that President Obama promised to deliver amnesty as part of his "Hope and Change" election campaign — or to consider that nagging detail about America's raging unemployment crisis.

The contrived talking point is that legalizing the current batch of job thieves would result in a "boon to American workers" and somehow "strengthen our economy." I am not making this up.

America's unemployment rate dipped from 10.2 percent in October to 10 percent in November. Many economists put the actual unemployment rate at 17 percent. Using the most positive figures, about 16 million Americans are out of work.

Official statistics show a loss of 11,000 jobs last month. About 190,000 jobs were lost in October.

While monitoring CNN, I heard a reporter tell viewers that there are at least six applicants for each available job.

One pundit put it this way: "Unemployment isn't just worse than Obama said it would be with the stimulus. It's even worse than he said it would be without the stimulus."

In addition to his recent "jobs summit" designed to get ideas on how to cut unemployment, the American president has publicly promised to pursue "every additional and responsible step" to get America back to work. Except, apparently, to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. and to remove the black market replacement labor from the work force.

Obama could put about 8 million Americans in jobs next week if he would only enthusiastically enforce existing immigration and employment laws today. As a longtime American who studies the organized crime that is illegal immigration — which is directly related to American unemployment — let me share some facts that Gutierrez and Obama hope you will never see.

You are supposed to believe the fairy tale that American borders have been secured.

U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 556,040 new "undocumented workers" illegally crossing our borders in fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30. Optimistic official estimates are one in four or five illegal alien border crossers are captured at the border.

Do the math.  Read more here.

Rhymes With Dumb: Legalizing Illegals Before They Even Immigrate

The proposed House amnesty bill (HR 4321) not only grants legal status to virtually all 12 million illegal aliens in the country, it also provides (in Sec. 317) legalization 100,000 wannabe illegals each year for three years who have not yet even set foot in the country. For a summary of the 644-page bill see here, and for the complete text see here.

It is another visa lottery, this time for some of the people now living in nations that send us illegal aliens, such as Mexico. To be eligible you have to be ineligible for any of the multitudinous other ways that one can obtain an immigrant visa. You have to be out of the country and be willing to "submit to criminal background checks" and, presumably, pass those checks.

This is a case of Thinking Ahead, a program to legalize illegal immigrants before they even do the migrating; maybe before they even think about it.

It is called the "Prevent Unauthorized Migration (PUM) Visa." PUM rhymes with...

The program has a couple of interesting aspects. First, it enables the lottery winners to obtain a conditional visa which can be converted to a green card after three years. In contrast, the conditional visas granted to actual illegal aliens already in the country under the proposed amnesty cannot be converted to the green card until after the passage of six years.

Second, the benefits of the program are to be denied to two classes of people – those with serious criminal records, and those who have graduated from college ("has completed less than a 4-year college degree program"). It sounds like the old rules for voting for the British House of Commons; all citizens could do so, except lunatics and members of the House of Lords.

Most nations have immigrant-screening processes that tilt in favor of those with higher education – but this proposed visa bars such people.

There are other intriguing aspects of the House plan. One is the twisted use of the language. A $500 filing fee – and the immigration process is full of fees – suddenly becomes a fine in this program. This term is used to suggest that the illegals are paying a penalty for their prior status, which makes their legalization OK. One wonders if $500 a head would even pay for the costs of the program.

Another is the provision (Sec. 313) for giving the sons and daughters of Filipino World War II veterans permanent admission outside the annual numerical limitations which routinely keeps migration from the Philippines down to 20,000. (All nations have such a ceiling for what is defined as numerically-limited migration.)

Two thoughts here: 1) if this second-generation reward for service to the cause in WW II is important – and it is not extended to children of those killed in Battles for Britain or Stalingrad – why not give these second-generation members priority over other Filipinos within the numerical ceilings?

2) American governmental history is ignored here. The U.S. government spent millions trying to identify veterans of the Filipino Army right after World War II, in order to pay pensions. Even before WW II the paper records of that army were not the best, and what did exist in 1941 was pretty thoroughly destroyed during the Japanese occupation. Now DHS and State will be asked to match the fragmentary army records with that nation's shaky system of birth records – the opportunities for document fraud are enormous.

Neither the bill nor the summary mention that the U.S. Government, earlier this year, paid out an additional $105 million to the 11,000 surviving Filipino veterans of WW II, in lump sum payments of $15,000 (to citizens) and $9,000 (to noncitizens); these payments were in addition to all other benefits that these veterans had received over the years from the other veterans compensation programs of the two nations.

Some of the children of these veterans – the ones with the special immigration benefits – might be getting a little old for migrating anywhere. The war years were 1941-1945, so the children of those serving were probably mostly born between 1930 and 1970, and thus are now 39 to 79 years of age. Their spouses and minor children would also get such visas.

Mexico says immigration reform unlikely in 2010

By MARK STEVENSON - Associated Press Writer

In an unusually frank assessment, Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan said Mexico will continue its quiet, "under the radar" lobbying for a reform that would benefit the estimated 11.8 million Mexicans living in the United States. A large percentage are undocumented.

"It's not that it is unachievable. It is possible, but it will be difficult," he told a news conference. "And this year, especially, the conditions ... will be particularly difficult." Read more here.

What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration

We may have found out. It's called universal voter registration. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund described the Democrat plan recently at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum. Watch the video here. [scroll down]

In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be ...'

The Nation article enthusiastically lists Cloward/Piven-inspired organizations like Project Vote, the ACORN group where President Obama cut his teeth. It also discusses the left's efforts to push enforcement of the Motor Voter law and explains how universal voter registration could assist in these efforts. Cloward and Piven were the ones who crafted Motor Voter legislation in the early 1980s and pushed for its enactment until 1993, when President Clinton signed it into law.

Cloward and Piven considered Motor Voter to be their crowning, lifetime achievement. The picture at right, from White House photo archives, shows Cloward (light gray suit) and Piven (green coat and navy dress) standing directly behind Clinton at the Motor Voter signing ceremony.

Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

 The U.S. government had intelligence from Yemen before Christmas that leaders of a branch of Al Qaeda there were talking about "a Nigerian" being prepared for a terrorist attack, the New York Times reported Tuesday.
A senior official told the Times that President Obama was told in a private meeting Tuesday while vacationing in Hawaii that the government had a variety of information in its possession before the failed bombing on a Detroit-bound flight last week that would have been a clear warning sign had it been shared among intelligence agencies.
The newspaper said the information did not include the name of the Nigerian.
A CIA official prepared a report on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab after a meeting with the suspect's father in November, who shared information about his son's extremist views, CNN reported Tuesday. The report was sent to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, but it sat there for five weeks and was not disseminated, a "reliable source" said.
"Had that information been shared... [he] might have been denied passage on the Northwest Airlines flight," the source reportedly said. Read more here.

As the Nation’s Pulse Races, Obama Can’t Seem to Find His

WASHINGTON

I was walking through a deserted downtown on Christmas Eve with a friend, past the lonely, gray Treasury Building, past the snowy White House with no president inside.

“I hope the terrorists don’t think this is a good time to attack,” I said, looking protectively at the White House, which always looks smaller and more vulnerable and beautiful than you expect, no matter how often you see it up close.

I thought our guard might be down because of the holiday; now I realize our guard is down every day.

One thrilling thing about moving from W. to Barack Obama was that Obama seemed like an avatar of modernity.

W., Dick Cheney and Rummy kept ceaselessly dragging us back into the past. America seemed to have lost her ingenuity, her quickness, her man-on-the-moon bravura, her Bugs Bunny panache.

Were we clever and inventive enough to protect ourselves from the new breed of Flintstones-hardy yet Facebook-savvy terrorists?

W.’s favorite word was “resolute,” but despite gazillions spent and Cheney’s bluster, our efforts to shield ourselves seemed flaccid.

President Obama’s favorite word is “unprecedented,” as Carol Lee of Politico pointed out. Yet he often seems mired in the past as well, letting his hallmark legislation get loaded up with old-school bribes and pork; surrounding himself with Clintonites; continuing the Bushies’ penchant for secrecy and expansive executive privilege; doubling down in Afghanistan while acting as though he’s getting out; and failing to capitalize on snazzy new technology while agencies thumb through printouts and continue their old turf battles.

Even before a Nigerian with Al Qaeda links tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet headed to Detroit, travelers could see we had made no progress toward a technologically wondrous Philip K. Dick universe.

We seemed to still be behind the curve and reactive, patting down grannies and 5-year-olds, confiscating snow globes and lip glosses.

Instead of modernity, we have airports where security is so retro that taking away pillows and blankies and bathroom breaks counts as a great leap forward.

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back.

In a rare bipartisan success, House members tried to prevent the Transportation Security Administration from implementing full-body imaging as a screening tool at airports.

Just because Republicans helped lead the ban on better technology and opposed airport security spending doesn’t mean they’ll stop Cheneying the Democrats for subverting national security.

Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan was weaselly enough to whack the president and “weak-kneed liberals” in his gubernatorial fund-raising letter.

Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.

Systemic Failure

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.