Saturday, 28 November 2009
Obama's Radical Rogues Gallery?

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval down to 48%

Obama's Big Change: He moves American to the Right

Obama's Radical Rogues Gallery?
by Phyllis Schlafly

Another kooky Barack Obama appointee became publicly known this month and quickly was thrown or voluntarily threw herself under the bus. Anita Dunn, the White House communications director (who led Obama's war on Fox News), said thatDunn Mao Tse-tung was one of her two favorite "political philosophers" whom "I turn to most" for answers to important questions.

History identifies Mao as a ruthless savage, not as a philosopher. He probably holds the record for ordering the mass murder of more people (50 to 100 million) than anyone else in history.

Dunn tried to claim that her statement was a joke, but anyone can look at her actual statement on YouTube and see that she spoke in deadly earnest. Dunn was part of Obama's inner circle and a senior media adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Dunn's husband, Bob Bauer, an expert on campaign financing, fundraising, and voter mobilization, is Obama's personal lawyer. He has just been appointed White House Counsel where he will be in charge of vetting Obama's appointees.

Obama's Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, had to exit in disgrace after he admitted that "I was a Communist." We can thank Glenn Beck for exposing him.

Obama's Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 in which he declared that the government "owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." So, after the death consultants authorized in Nancy Pelosi's health care bill convince you to reject life-saving procedures, the organ-transplant team can remove your body's organs immediately.

Czar Sunstein also argues that animals are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court. Bow, wow; more business for trial lawyers. His wife, Samantha Power, is now on Obama's National Security Council. She is famous for writing a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide, which she defined so narrowly that it excluded Stalin and Mao.

Obama's nominee for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households. This lengthy document, called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," argues that traditional marriage should not be "privileged above all others."

Obama's education appointments, who came out of the Chicago political machine right along with Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, will have nearly $100 billion in new money to indoctrinate America's youth. Obama's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is notorious for trying to start a gay high school in Chicago.

Obama's Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, founded the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist group that now has thousands of chapters at high schools across the nation.

GLSEN chapters and materials have promoted sex between young teens and adults and sponsored "field trips" to gay pride parades. Jennings was the keynote speaker at a notorious GLSEN conference at Tufts University in 2000 at which HIV/AIDS coordinators discussed in detail, before an audience including area high school students, how to perform various homosexual acts.

Obama's Science Czar wrote in a college textbook that compulsory "green abortions" are an acceptable way to control population growth. We assume that what makes an abortion green is when the motive for the killing is population control to serve environmentalist dogma.

Affirmative action is in vogue in Obama's administration: his Diversity Czar has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities. Obama's first appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is a woman who said repeatedly that a "Latina woman" would make better judicial decisions than "a white male."

Obama's top lawyer at the State Department, Harold Hongju Koh, calls himself a transnationalist. That means wanting U.S. courts to "domesticate" foreign and international law, i.e., integrate it into U.S. domestic law binding on U.S. citizens.

Koh is eager to put us under a global legal system that would diminish our "distinctive rights culture" such as due process, trial by jury, and our First Amendment "protections for speech and religion" that give "far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia." Under global governance, the United States will be forbidden to allow more freedom and constitutional rights than other countries.

When Obama's appointee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, David Hamilton, was a District Court judge, he prohibited the Indiana State Legislature from giving an invocation that mentioned Jesus, while mention of Allah was allowed. Hamilton worked for ACORN and the ACLU, and even the liberal American Bar Association rated him "not qualified."

And we thought the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was an embarrassment to Barack Obama when he was running for President! We never dreamed Obama would actually appoint such a collection of weirdos.

Posted on 11/28/2009 6:04 AM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 23 November 2009
Reid Victorious: The American People Lose

COMMENT: In the US Senate on Saturday evening, 58 Democrats and two Independents voted YES on Cloture to permit the Reid (2074 pages written in secret) health care proposal to go forward.  The vote was 60-39-1. Thirty-nine Republicans (Voinovich, R-OH was absent, but was also a 'no') stood by the American people united in their opposition to the government takeover of health care. 

TN Tennessee Senators
Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker made us proud.
(Will you click on their names and 'thank' them?)

Out-of-state subscribers can go
HERE to find their Senators.

Horizontal bars indicate the two senators from a state voted differently.

This is from a great site you may want to visit and bookmark:

We lost this battle, but that DOES NOT mean that we will lose the war. Reid had to make a lot of promises to round up the needed 60 votes. One of his tactics was dubbed: "Cash for Cloture."  I think it will be even more difficult for him to get the 60 votes for cloture at the end of the debate.  The Senate is scheduled take up the debate on Monday, November 30. I know, I know...the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays are approaching, but folks, we MUST stay engaged--it is our DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY. The future of our nation is at stake.

10 Things You Should Know About this Bill

The Demcare bribe list

Republican governors: 'Opt out' unworkable

Senate health care bill created new marriage penalty

Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.

Senate Health Bill Raises Taxes on Families of Special Needs Children

Two Battles Lost, The War Continues

Pitts Fumes Over Commission of Abortion Language in Senate Health Care

Senator Mitch McConnell
Floor Remarks

November 21, 2009

“Mr. President, the nation is watching the Senate tonight. The American people know how important this vote is. They’ve seen the bill theMcConnell Democratic Leaders want to impose on them, and they want to know where the rest of us will stand.

“This bill itself is a massive monument to bureaucracy and spending. But at its core it’s really quite simple.

“At a moment when more than one out of ten working Americans is looking for a job, at a time when the Chinese are lecturing us about our debt, this bill—this bill right here costs $2.5 trillion government doesn’t have. And cannot afford.

“It imposes punishing taxes on almost everyone. It raises health insurance premiums on the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance and if that were not bad enough, it slashes Medicare by half a trillion dollars. Anyone who votes aye tonight, Mr. President, is voting for all of these things.

“Now Mr. President it is a fact, a vote in favor of proceeding to this bill is a vote in favor of adding to the tax burden of the American people in the midst of double-digit unemployment. A vote in favor of proceeding to this bill is a vote to raise health insurance premiums on people who were told, they were told, that they could expect their health insurance costs to go down. A vote in favor of proceeding to this bill is a vote in favor of deep cuts to Medicare for tens of millions of seniors—seniors who depend on it totally. A vote to proceed to this bill is a vote to continue the completely out-of-control spending binge congress has been on all year. A vote in favor of this bill tells every American family sitting in a waiting room tonight, wondering when they’ll get to see a doctor or how much it’s going to cost, it’s not our concern. And worst of all, a vote in favor of this bill is a vote in favor of the spending binge that’s leading to a massive and unsustainable long-term debt that will shackle our children to a future they can’t afford.

“That’s what tonight’s vote is all about. If it wasn’t, none of us would be here on a Saturday night with the nation watching and waiting to see what we do here. They’re watching because they know that none of this—none of this is inevitable. All it takes is one vote, just one. The simple math is this, if there were one Democrat, just one of our friends on the other side of the aisle—just one who would say no tonight, none of this would happen.

“The voices of the American people would be heard. We’ve seen all the surveys. We know how they feel. If just one Democrat were to say no tonight, he’d be saying no to the premium increases, no to the tax cuts, no to the Medicare cuts. Just one on the other side of the aisle. And then we could start over with a common-sense step-by-step approach to fix the problem that got us here in the first place, and that was that health care costs too much.

“Now, Mr. President, the sad irony of this whole debate, the problem that got us here is that health care costs are out of control. And, yet, the neutral nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the score keeper around here, says that under this bill—this massive bill health care costs are actually going to go up, not down. And the American people thought that’s what this whole debate was about in the first place.

“So 2,074 pages and trillions of dollars later—2,074 pages, and trillions of dollars later, this bill doesn’t even meet the basic goal that the American people had in mind and what they thought this debate was all about to lower costs. This bill will actually make the situation worse. And now we’re about to vote on it. Now we’ve heard some senators come to the floor today and say that they oppose this bill, but they don’t want to stop the debate. They oppose the bill, but they don’t want to stop the debate.

“Mr. President, nobody is suggesting we stop the debate. No one. Not a single senator on this side of the aisle have I heard suggest that we stop the debate. But if we don’t stop this bill tonight, the only debate we’ll be having—the only debate we’ll be having is about higher premiums, not savings for the American people, higher taxes instead of lower costs, and cuts to Medicare rather than improving seniors care. That’s what the debate will be about. Now the American people, and 40 of us in this room sitting on this side of the aisle, are not asking to end the debate. That’s not what we have in mind, to end the debate. What we want to do is change the debate, not end it. Change it. Because once we get on this bill, the basic dimensions will not change.  The basic dimensions will not change.

“So I ask: why should we consider a bill we already know the American people oppose?  This is not anything anybody’s in doubt about.  The American people think, if you don’t like this bill, you’ve got an obligation to try to stop it.  And that opportunity will come at 8:00. 

“Now, I’m sure this won’t come as a surprise to any member of the Senate, but it’s going to take 60 votes to change this bill.  That means the bill is introduced, this thing we’re looking at right here, will fundamentally be the bill we’ll be asked to pass sometime in the future.  That is a fact.

“Now, after tonight’s vote we’ll all go home and face our constituents.  We’ll have to tell them how we voted on raising their premiums, raising their taxes, and cutting their Medicare.  For some of us, that’s not going to be a very easy conversation.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

“If you really want to lower costs and premiums, then we can work together step by step and pass the commonsense reforms the American people have been asking for all along.  We can end junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals which drive up costs.  We can encourage healthy choices like prevention and wellness programs which hold down costs.  We can lower costs by letting consumers buy coverage across state lines.  We can allow small businesses to band together to get lower insurance rates.  And, certainly, we can address the rampant – absolutely rampant – waste, fraud and abuse that drive up costs.  All of these are changes worth making.

“The American people are looking at the Senate tonight.  They’re hoping we say ‘no’ to this bill so we can start on a better plan that fixes the problem that the American people care about most, and that is cost.

“They want us to start over.

“There’s nothing about this massive bill that they like.  They want us to start over.  They want us to address their real concerns.  All it would take is just one member of the other side of the aisle – just one – to  give us an opportunity, not to end the debate, but to change the debate in the direction the American people would like us to go.”

Posted on 11/23/2009 11:45 AM by Bobbie Patray
Saturday, 21 November 2009
NOTICE: Reid finally introduces his bill

COMMENT:  The long awaited Reid Health Care bill["Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", H.R. 3590] written in secret has been introduced. It is 2074 pages long and can be found HERE.
The 36-page Congressional Budget Report can be found

BTW,  "one Senate Democratic leadership staffer acknowledged that the cost estimate did not even represent an official preliminary score from the CBO but was a representation of 'preliminary feedback' that Reid has gotten from the nonpartisan Congressional agency."

There is only one message about this bill:  Vote NO on ANY cloture motion proposed.  This is a bad bill -- there is no way make it a good bill.  It is anti-life on every level, regardless of the way abortion is or isn't addressed.  Any Senator who votes YES on cloture is voting for socialized health care.  We MUST see the BIG picture here and not get caught up in the minute details.  Putting the government in charge of one-sixth of our economy is unconstitutional, will, by force, of law require Americans to purchase a product, will raise taxes, lead to rationed health care  and bankrupt this country.

Tennessee Senators Alexander and Corker seem to understand the problems with this proposal, however, they need our encouragement to stand strong.  Go HERE to send an email; go HERE to find their phone numbers to verify their position on this bill.

Out-of-state subscribers go HERE to find your Senators, especially if you live in these states or have friends or family whose senators are: Sens. Ben Nelson on Nebraska, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. They have not committed on the bill.


Showdown Set for Health Bill

Senate Democrats' $848 Billion Plan Promises Deficit Cut, Medicare-Tax Hike for Rich


WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set the stage for a climactic debate in the Senate over health care by unveiling a 10-year, $848 billion bill that would extend insurance to 31 million Americans without coverage.
Mr. Reid's proposed legislation, 2,074 pages, is the Senate's answer to a bill that narrowly passed the House Nov. 7. The two bills have differences on taxes, abortion coverage and a public-insurance plan and would require considerable work to reconcile if Congress hopes to pass some form of health care overhaul -- the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda.
The Senate bill needs 60 votes to proceed to a floor debate, and Mr. Reid is expected to call a vote later this week, perhaps Saturday if not sooner. If the tally gets to 60 -- which was still uncertain Wednesday, though Senate Democrats showed increasing confidence -- that would open perhaps the most critical period of legislative action on American health care since Congress created Medicare in the 1960s. The debate would end with a vote on the bill by the full Senate. Nearly every Republican in Congress still opposes the overhaul effort, and there are still sharp disputes among Democrats about central provisions.
"This is yet another trillion-dollar experiment, but it is not what Americans bargained for," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.)
One swing Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said he still has a range of concerns but suggested he might at least be willing to begin debate. "If you don't like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it?" he said. Two other Democrats on the fence, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, remained noncommittal Wednesday evening.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would ensure that 94% of those living in the U.S., not counting illegal immigrants, have insurance coverage. CBO previously estimated about 83% of Americans now have insurance.
Read more here.

That Darn Mandate
Shikha Dalmia
, 11.18.09, 12:01 AM EST

Will Americans be forced to buy health insurance?

ObamaCare has nothing going for it anymore. With unemployment touching double digits, its economic timing is bad; with polls showing tanking support in every group outside of the narrow sliver of die-hard liberal reformers, its political timing is bad; and with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week saying that it'll add billions to the already out-of-control deficit, its fiscal timing has gone from bad to awful.
So how are Comrades Pelosi, Reid and Obama able to march ahead with their grand designs undeterred? One reason is that Republicans have done precious little to seize the moral high ground from them. By insisting on the removal of the public option--instead of the individual mandate--as the price of doing business, Republicans have missed a major opportunity to put Democrats on the defensive and change the terms of the debate.
Republicans threw down the gauntlet on the public option--a government-funded, Medicare-style insurance plan that will compete with private insurance--in a
June letter to Obama. "Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers," they said. "The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy."
True. But the problem is that Democrats don't need the public option to engineer a "federal takeover of our health care system." All they need is the power to force Americans to purchase insurance.
Read more here.

In Pictures: Obamacare Puts One-Fifth of U.S. On Welfare

Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program created in 1965 to provide health care for low income families. Despite the fact that it is one of the most poorly performing of all the federal welfare programs it has become the cornerstone of how health insurance is expanded under Obamacare. The Health care “reform” bills advancing in the House and Senate would expand Medicaid by making this government-run health plan available to all adults with incomes at or below 150% of the poverty line. The change would dramatically multiply eligible recipients, with 46 states seeing increases of at least 20%, including 16 posting jumps of 50% or more. Almost 21% of the entire U.S. population would be eligible for Medicaid and seven states and the District of Columbia would have eligibility rates of at least 25%.



Eight Senate Democrats Demand “Complete Budget Scores” From CBO And Legislative Text Posted For “At Least 72 Hours Prior To The First Vote To Proceed To The Legislation”

“The legislative text and complete budget scores from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the health care legislation considered on the Senate floor should be made available on a website the public can access for at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to the legislation.” (Senators Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Letter To Sen. Reid, 10/6/09)
Read letter


Posted on 11/21/2009 4:17 PM by Bobbie Patray
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Climate bill postponed

COMMENT:  Be encouraged!! While we will certainly keep watch (as you know, things in DC can 'change on a dime') I believe this apparent postponement of the 'cap-and-tax' effort is because we have been relentlessly involved.  Keep that in mind as we continue to fight the government take over of health care.  What YOU DO makes a difference.

Senate to Put Off Climate Bill Until Spring


Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday.

Climate legislation will be taken up "some time in the spring," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday after a Democratic caucus meeting.

The delay was "just a matter of reality, they can't get anything done at this time," said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who has previously supported climate legislation. He has said he wouldn't support the current Senate proposal because of disagreements over its handling of nuclear energy.

The climate-bill delay sidetracks one of President Barack Obama's top domestic priorities. Mr. Obama has said action to curb greenhouse gases would unleash investment in clean-energy technology and create jobs.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Tuesday Mr. Obama was working with lawmakers to move the legislation as quickly as possible.

"This is an economic opportunity for the nation that will create millions of clean energy jobs while reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and it's an opportunity that other countries like China and India are racing to take advantage of," Mr. LaBolt said in an email.

Momentum for a climate bill has been undermined by fears that capping carbon-dioxide emissions -- the inevitable product of burning oil and coal -- would slow economic growth, raise energy costs and compel changes in the way Americans live.

"It's really big, really, really hard, and is going to make a lot of people mad," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.).

Democrats looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections are concerned about a backlash from voters in industrial and heartland states dependent on coal. Republicans are portraying Democrats' "cap and trade" proposals, which call for capping overall U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions and allowing companies to buy and trade permits to emit those gases, as a "cap and tax" scheme.Read more here.

Posted on 11/21/2009 5:44 AM by Bobbie Patray
Saturday, 21 November 2009
COPENHAGEN in December: Will he or won't he???

COMMENT:  The YouTube video, "Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?" went 'viral' in a hurry. I probably received it from 15 or more people.  Before passing any information on to our members and subscribers, I did some research, so let's slow down and take a deep breath. While the situation is serious, the sky is not falling, at least not yet.

Yes, the
Climate Change Conference
will be held in Copenhagen, December 7-18, 2009.  Prior to that there will be a final round of negotiations November 2-6 in Barcelona, Spain. As you can see from the articles, included by date, this proposed treaty is in a steady state of flux.  The final language has not been determined, so we will not know for awhile exactly what will be in it.  If the United States does end up signing the treaty, that does not mean that its provisions will become binding.  Treaties have to go to the US Senate for approval where they must received 67 votes.
(That is a serious matter as Article VI of the US Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Although, things can certainly change, it now looks as if President Obama may not even be attending (see below). This is not the time to panic, but to pay attention and be vigilant. We will keep you updated in a timely fashion.


1. Obama to surrender US sovereignty at UN global warming conference

October 19, 2009
Not content with his
humiliation at Copenhagen, Denmark this past September, President Obama will be traveling there again in December to attend the UN COP15 Climate Change Conference. This agreement would commit the United States to punitive and expensive greenhouse gas regulations dictated by the United Nations without recourse.

COP stands for "Conference of the Parties" and the December Copenhagen conference will be the 15th under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), hence COP15. According to their website, it will be one of the largest conferences ever held outside the New York or Geneva headquarters, with an anticipated attendance of over 10,000 people, including governmental representatives from 189 countries, industry groups, and other non-governmental organizations.

The theme of the December 7 - 18 conference is "Hope," so perhaps Mr. Obama will have more luck this time. Instead of soliciting the International Olympic Committee with trite clichés and no payoffs, he will be doing something much easier: selling out our country. After all, ceding power, relinquishing billions in U.S. tax dollars and destroying U.S. economic competitiveness is a pretty easy sell to the countries that will benefit, and he has had a lot of practice doing the same thing here at home. He will have a hard time screwing this one up.  Read more here.

2. United States sovereignty at risk if Obama signs Copenhagen Climate Treaty?

October 20, 2009
The latest internet buzz, the ceding of U.S. sovereignty if
President Obama is to sign the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, has been stirred significantly by the proliferation of a You Tube video featuring a Lord Christopher Monckton. In the coming features we shall examine the available biography of this British gentleman and what he has to do with anything, but suffice it to say the global warming crowd has preemptively begun its assault on Monckton’s credentials since he repudiates Al Gore style climate change hysteria. One website falsely stated he "has no scientific credentials whatever." Fact is, Lord Monckton is the former Scientific Advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, so that in itself refutes the claim. However, at present this is to digress.

Before one endeavors to grasp the specifics of the matter, it might be helpful to better understand exactly what is meant by "sovereignty," the various concepts of its importance, and philosophical viewpoints regarding its preservation and/or the implications of losing it. Sovereignty is generally defined: supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control, autonomy, controlling influence, one that is sovereign, especially: an autonomous state. As a unique experiment in liberty and the democratic process, it's this idea of "freedom from external control" that should give Americans the greatest cause for alarm.
Read more here.

3.  Gearing Up for the Copenhagen Climate Conference
October 20, 2009
Cap and trade is nowhere near dead but it’s not the only weapon in the arsenal against capping carbon dioxide emissions. Another significant threat to United States energy policy is the possible climate treaty that could supplant the Kyoto Protocol as the new treaty to combat global warming. Just as scary, if not more so, is how an international treaty could affect U.S. sovereignty.

In preparation for the December 7-18 summit, The Heritage Foundation will be covering all the details - up to, during, and after the conference. From energy, to free trade to sovereignty, we’ll address all the angles and provide background information, frequent updates and international perspectives.
Read more here.

4.  As Time Runs Short for Global Climate Treaty, Nations May Settle for Interim Steps

October 20, 2009
WASHINGTON — With the clock running out and deep differences unresolved, it now appears that there is little chance that international
climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December will produce a comprehensive and binding new treaty on global warming.
The United States and many other major pollutant-emitting countries have concluded that it is more useful to take incremental but important steps toward a global agreement rather than to try to jam through a treaty that is either too weak to address the problem or too onerous to be ratified and enforced.
Instead, representatives at the Copenhagen meeting are likely to announce a number of interim steps and agree to keep talking next year.
“There isn’t sufficient time to get the whole thing done,” Yvo De Boer, the Dutch diplomat who leads the
United Nations climate secretariat and oversees the negotiations, said late last week. “But I hope it will go well beyond simply a declaration of principles. The form I would like it to take is the groundwork for a ratifiable agreement next year.”
Negotiators have accepted as all but inevitable that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks will not resolve the outstanding issues in the time remaining before the Copenhagen conference opens in December. The gulf between rich and poor nations, and even among the wealthiest nations, is just too wide.
Representatives of the 16 largest emitting countries and the
European Union, who concluded a meeting in London on Monday, said that they had made progress on the level of aid needed to help poor countries adapt to climate change and adopt less-polluting energy technology.
They also said they had settled some questions on the “architecture” of any agreement reached in Copenhagen, while acknowledging that it would fall short of a binding treaty.
Read more here.

5. Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty in Copenhagen

October 23, 2009
ope is vanishing that a historic deal to address climate change can be concluded in Copenhagen, and Environment Minister Jim Prentice says the best chance is for a political agreement that would pave the way for a treaty to be signed later.

But Canada will continue to insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions than Europe or Japan because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure, Mr. Prentice said in an interview Thursday.

Canadians must also recognize that any national emissions cap has to reflect differing conditions across the country so as not to punish high-growth provinces, he added. The minister has been consulting with provinces on a plan that would impose a cap on industrial emissions, but allow Alberta's energy-intensive, emissions-heavy oil sands to continue expanding. Read more here.

6. Obama Likely to Skip Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen
October 24, 2009

President Obama is "leaning toward not going" to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, a senior administration official told Fox News.

The current thinking in the administration is that since the conference is not a "head of state" event, Obama will not attend. Obama will be accepting the Nobel Prize in Oslo on the second day of the Copenhagen conference and may use that platform to address climate change issues.

On big reason the Copenhagen conference is not a "head of state" event is because of the slow progress of climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate. Read more here.

7. President Obama won't talk climate change in Copenhagen

October 24, 2009
President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.

The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize, but a source close to the Administration said it was “hard to see the benefit” of his going to Copenhagen if there was no comprehensive deal for him to close or sign. Another expert, who did not want to be named, said he would be “really, really shocked” if Mr Obama went to Copenhagen, adding that European hopes about the power of his Administration to transform the climate change debate in a matter of months bore little relation to reality. The comprehensive climate change treaty that for years has been the goal of the Copenhagen conference was now an “unrealistic” prospect, Yvo de Boer, the UN official guiding the process, said last week. Read more here.

Lord Christopher Monckton
Full hour and a half video of 
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul.
Posted on 11/21/2009 5:41 AM by Bobbie Patray
Sunday, 15 November 2009
It's Radical Islam

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a  fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an ever lasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adams

Feds move to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran
By ADAM GOLDMAN , 11.13.09, 12:36 AM EST
NEW YORK -- Federal prosecutors took steps Thursday to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.
In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets.
The assets include bank accounts; Islamic centers consisting of schools and mosques in
New York City, Maryland, California and Houston; more than 100 acres in Virginia; and a 36-story glass office tower in New York.
Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and trying to build a nuclear bomb.
Read more here.

ACT! for America launched a national petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR, due to the mounting revelations of CAIR misdeeds and ties to terrorist organizations.


Holder to Speak at CAIR Event
November 10, 2009; by Jim Meyers
Attorney General Eric Holder will deliver a keynote speech at a gathering that includes an Islamic group linked to a Muslim terrorist organization.
Holder will speak in Detroit on Nov. 19 at the first annual awards banquet of Advocates and Leaders for Police and Community Trust, a coalition of law enforcement and community groups. That coalition includes the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Politico reported.
CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Five Holy Land officers were convicted in 2008.
"During that trial, evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders...and the Palestine Committee," FBI Congressional liaison Richard Powers wrote in an April letter to Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.
"Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI."
Read more here.

It’s Radical Islam, Stupid

CAIRIn 1993, a secret meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee – mostly senior Hamas leaders – was held in a Philadelphia Marriott. The group discussed new ways to secretly funnel money to Hamas and of creating a new public relations organization to deceive the American about their true objectives of helping Hamas.
Less than a year later, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was created to serve as a front group for Hamas. Since that time, it has morphed into a quasi legitimate "Islamic civil rights" group portrayed in some circles as the equivalent of the NAACP. For 14 years, CAIR got away with the lying to us about who they are, justifying Islamic terrorist attacks, legitimizing suicide bombings, presenting speakers who had been Holocaust deniers, making incendiary presentations about the United States and urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. CAIR claims that that there is no such thing as radical Islam, but rather a secret cabal to attack all of Islam, while secretly receiving millions of dollars from Saudi financiers and attacking terrorist prosecutions as somehow an "attack on Islam."
CAIR now has dozens of chapters which host annual banquets featuring not only radical speakers, but outside guests including chiefs of police, congressmen, FBI and DHS officials – even getting Tampa and Houston to declare "CAIR Day” in their respective cities. (In fairness, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio announced this year that she would no longer do so after studying CAIR's record.)
On the other side, the FBI – despite 14 years of a cozy relationship with CAIR – finally decided to sever relations with CAIR in late 2008 for its ties to Hamas. In the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an FBI agent testified that CAIR was a front for Hamas. In other words, CAIR was a front for a terrorist group. And it was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator as well in the case.
Bravo to the FBI for making the right and politically courageous decision.
Last week, a new book, Muslim Mafia, disclosed or elaborated on many of these developments within CAIR. Four Congressmen, led by Sue Myrick, (R-NC),Muslim Mafia held a press conference to protest the fact that CAIR, a Hamas front group, had a plan to insert interns into key congressional committees. The book made plenty of other disclosures that were highlighted by the Congressman.
And what happened? Those other points were discarded by the media, which picked up CAIR's dissembling spin that the Congressmen advocated a witch hunt against all Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. They said no such thing.
CNN never challenged any of the demonstrably false statements made by a CAIR official it interviewed. The news website Politico whitewashed CAIR. Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution called CAIR a "mainstream" group unfairly targeted by right wing wackos. Congressmen John Conyers and Loretta Sanchez, who had done CAIR's bidding for years, were among those who leapt to CAIR's defense. They all bought into CAIR's manifestly ludicrous claim that attacking CAIR was somehow tantamount to attacking all of Islam.
That has been CAIR's modus operandi since its inception.
CAIR often throws out unsubstantiated charges of bigotry to deflect attention away from its detailed and documented record of conning the American people. My organization challenged those specious claims in a thorough report that can be seen here.
Much of the damning information about CAIR came out well before the book, primarily through evidence in the HLF trial. And yet earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered that CAIR officials be included in conference calls about the Middle East; the State Department even dispatched key CAIR officials – some of whom have made blatantly racist statements claiming that the reports of the Darfur genocide was actually part of a "Zionist" conspiracy – on official U.S. diplomatic missions. The Department of Homeland Security, despite being briefed that CAIR was a front group for a terrorist organization, had official meetings with CAIR. And it appointed recently as a senior advisor to DHS a member of an organization that believes that Hezbollah is a good group that should not be classified as terrorist.
And in the last few years, National Public Radio (NPR), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Detroit News – to pick at random from the media – have become a cheerleading squad for CAIR, interviewing CAIR officials as if they were no different that Rotary Club officials while suppressing any negative information about CAIR. For the mainstream media, it seems, the government is more of an evil force than Hamas. The New York Times' public editor even made the startling admission last year that it did not call Hamas a terrorist group, "though it sponsors acts of terror against Israel."
The reason? The paper's Jerusalem bureau chief finds "the word terrorist is politically loaded and overused" and there are Hamas members not directly involved in killing people.
And not all Klansmen engaged in lynching. But no one would hesitate to call out the KKK for the racism and terror at the root of its ideology and tactics.
Contrast that with the free pass given to CAIR. Where is CAIR on stoning on women? Senior CAIR officials adamantly refuse to condemn the barbaric practice of stoning Muslim women. Where is CAIR on Israel and Jews? Some senior CAIR officials routinely refer to Jews as "Zionazis" and top CAIR guests at their dinners – most recently former Congressman Paul Findley – blamed Israel for the horrific attacks on 9/11. Right after 9/11, top CAIR officials denied that Saudis were behind those horrific attacks.
There is a much larger pattern here that just the apologia or selective amnesia for CAIR. The free pass given to radical Islam has become a pandemic. The Goldstone Report, which purported to document "Israeli war crimes" in the war with Hamas in January, was one of the most dangerously one-sided, dishonest reports ever produced by the United Nations. Naturally the New York Times played it as a lead item on the front page without any skepticism by their reporter, who is known to take CAIR hand outs.
The Goldstone report effectively took all of the propaganda put out by Hamas – much of it demonstrably false – and presented it as a fact. If applied to the United States, the report would have branded every soldier and every officer in the Iraq and Afghanistan war a "war criminal." The fact that the Goldstone report has gotten this far is attributable to one thing only: the existence of a powerful Islamic lobby at the United Nations.
In yet another example of the inverted focus when it comes to radical Islam, Random House, Yale University Press, and now a German publisher, won't publish books that are "critical" of, or potentially offensive to, Muslim extremists. Even the much celebrated journalist Fareed Zakaria of CNN and Newsweek showed his true profile in cowardice when he advised Yale University Press not to include images of the Prophet Mohammed in a book about the controversy stirred by the 2005 publication of the Danish cartoons.
There's been a lot of talk lately about balanced reporting. These examples show how easily terrorists and their sympathizers receive more than the benefit of the doubt in the public debate. They get outright support from supposedly neutral third party observers and license to continue their deceit and treachery.
The mind boggles. Contributing Editor Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, is the author of six books on national security and Middle Eastern terrorism. 

Posted on 11/15/2009 7:48 AM by Bobbie Patray
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Did political correctness kill soldiers at Ft. Hood?

COMMENT: Well, it is looking like the answer to the question in the subject line is, in part, yes.  Now we learn that Hasan was recruited and that problems and concerns were ignored.  We have a radical Imam praising this act, but we do have an Imam in Virginia denouncing those statements. 

Perhaps the most absurd reaction of all is from Mayor Daley:
Chicago Mayor Daley Blames Fort Hood On America’s Love Of Guns!
Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group."

Excuse me, did I wake up in an alternative universe? Don't answer that question!! We have become so 'open minded' and 'politically correct' that our brains have fallen out and the families and friends, and the military brothers and sisters of 13 service members are paying dearly. Let us continue to pray for those grieving as well as those recovering from their wounds.

Military Doctors Worried Hasan Was 'Psychotic,' Capable of Killing Fellow Soldiers 

Thursday , November 12, 2009



U.S. military doctors overseeing Nidal Malik Hasan's medical training were concerned he was "psychotic" and possibly capable of killing other American soldiers, before the Army major allegedly went on a deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas.

Psychiatrists and medical officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center held a series of meetings beginning in the Spring of 2008 to discuss serious concerns about his work and behavior, National Public Radio reported.

One of the questions they asked: Was Hasan psychotic?

"Put it this way," one official told NPR. "Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole."

One official who participated in the discussions reportedly told others he was worried that if Hasan was deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak covert military information to Islamic extremists, NPR reported.

Another official "wondered aloud" to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of killing fellow soldiers in the same way a Muslim sergeant in 2003 had set off grenades at a base in Kuwait and claimed the lives to two and injured 14 others, the radio network reported.

The officials who discussed Hasan's status were unaware — as some top Walter Reed hospital officials were — that intelligence agencies had been tracking Hasan's e-mails to a radical Muslim imam since December 2008, NPR said.

Officials considered kicking Hasan out of the program but chose not to partly because firing a doctor is a "cumbersome and lengthy" process that involves hearings and potential legal conflict, sources told NPR. 

Officials also believed they lacked solid evidence that Hasan was unstable and were concerned they could be accused of discriminating against him because of his Islamic identity or views.

The concerns about Hasan's performance and religious views were shared with other military officials considering his assignment after he finished his medical training, and the consensus was to send the 39-year-old psychiatrist to Fort Hood, an official told the Associated Press.

Hasan was characterized in the meetings as a mediocre student and lazy worker, a matter of concern among the doctors and staff at Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, a military medical school in Bethesda, Maryland, an official told The Associated Press.

Fort Hood, one of the country's largest military installations, was considered the best assignment for Hasan because other doctors could handle the workload if he continued to perform poorly and his superiors could document any continued behavior problems, the official said.

Sharon Willis, a spokeswoman for the Uniformed Services University, referred questions Wednesday about Hasan to his lawyer. The attorney, John Galligan of Belton, Texas, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

The revelations about the concerns that Hasan's superiors had before sending him to Fort Hood come amid a growing debate over what warning signs the military and law enforcement officials might have missed before last week's massacre. Read more here.

Actual number of Muslims in the U.S. military believed much higher than records show
military plans to begin a review of the rising number of Muslims in its ranks.  Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, born in the United States and alleged to have killed 13 soldiers in the army base at Fort Hood, Texas, did not identify himself as a Muslim when he enlisted. Officials said Hasan was recruited as part of a U.S. military drive to reach out to the Muslim community. Officials said the Defense Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to discuss an examination of the Muslim presence in the U.S. military and the threat of Al Qaida influence. They said the Congress was pressing for such a review in wake of the Nov. 5 killing of 13 U.S. troops by a Muslim officer.

"We have to go back and look at ourselves and ask ourselves the hard questions," U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said. "Are we doing the right things? We will learn from this." Source.

Sometimes an Extremist Really Is an Extremist
Just as we should not jump to conclusions, we shouldn’t jump away from them.

By Jonah Goldberg

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan demonstrated many things when he allegedly committed treason in the war on terror. For starters, he showed — gratuitously, alas — that evil is still thriving.

He demonstrated that being a trained psychiatrist provides no immunity to ancient hatreds and religious fanaticism, nor does psychiatric training provide much acuity in spotting such things in others. For example, the London Telegraph reports that, in what was supposed to be a medical lecture, Hasan instead gave an hour-long briefing on the Koran, explaining to colleagues at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that nonbelievers should be beheaded, have boiling oil poured down their throats, and be set on fire.

His fellow psychiatrists completely missed this “red flag” — a suddenly popular euphemism for incandescently obvious evidence this man had no place in the U.S. Army.

He proved how lacking our domestic security system is. According to ABC News, intelligence agencies were aware for months that Hasan had tried to contact al-Qaeda. His colleagues reportedly knew he sympathized with suicide bombings and attacks on U.S. troops abroad, and one colleague said Hasan was pleased by an attack on an Army recruiting office and suggested more of the same might be desirable. That’s treason, even if you’re a Muslim.

Which raises the most troubling revelation: For many people, the idea that he is a Muslim fanatic, motivated by other Muslim fanatics, was — at least initially — too terrible to contemplate. How else to explain the reflexive insistence after the attack that the real culprit was post-traumatic stress disorder? The fact that PTSD is usually diagnosed in people who’ve been through trauma (hence the “post”), and that Hasan had never seen combat, didn’t seem to matter much.

Apparently the “P” in PTSD can now stand for “pre.”

A few months ago, an anti-Semitic old nut named James von Brunn allegedly took a gun to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to get payback against “the Jews” and killed a black security guard in the process.

In response to this horrific crime, the leading lights of American liberalism knew who was to blame: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the GOP. One writer for the Huffington Post put it succinctly: “Thank you very much Karl Rove and your minions.”

The fact that Von Brunn was a 9/11 “truther” who railed against capitalism, neocons, and the Bush administration didn’t matter. Nor did the glaring lack of evidence that Rove et al. ever showed antipathy for the museum. It was simply obvious that Von Brunn was the offspring of the “right-wing extremism (that) is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment,” wrote columnist Paul Krugman.

If only Hasan were a fan of Glenn Beck!

President Obama was right when he said, in the hours after the shooting, that people shouldn’t “jump to conclusions” (a lesson he might have learned when he jumped to the wrong conclusion about a white cop who arrested Henry Louis Gates, a black Harvard professor). But just as we should not jump to conclusions, we shouldn’t jump away from them.
Read more here.

Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.
It was the latest in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, on Thursday.

Hasan, armed with two handguns including a semi-automatic pistol, walked into a processing centre for soldiers deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, where he killed 13 and injured more than 30.

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty." Read more here.

Radical imam praises Fort Hood shooting suspect

Imam condemns support of alleged Ft. Hood shooter

Posted on 11/15/2009 7:46 AM by Bobbie Patray
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Planned Parenthood Director in Texas Resigns

COMMENT: What  a 'praise the Lord' this is!  And, thank the Lord for those faithful people who have prayed! Truth won out.  Planned Parenthood tried to silence her with a restraining order but thankfully, failed (see last article.) See Abby Johnson HERE.

Planned Parenthood Director in Texas Resigns, Watched Ultrasound of Abortion

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 2
, 2009

See video HERE.

Bryan, TX ( -- The director of a Texas-based Planned Parenthood has resigned her position saying that she has had a change of heart on abortion. The development highlights the powerful results ultrasounds have in convincing people of the humanity of the unborn child and the need to oppose abortions.

Abby Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood center in this college town, that is home to Texas A&M University, until she turned in her resignation on October 6.

She tells KBTX that seeing an ultrasound instantaneously prompted her to quit.

"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," she said.

In the interview, Johnson admitted that Planned Parenthood doesn't make its money on promoting contraception or family planning, but through abortion.

"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," she admitted.

She also told KBTX she was told to bring in more women for abortions -- something that contradicted her Episcopalian upbringing.

"I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion," she said.

Johnson said she will now work with the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group that operates locally and has a building down the street from the abortion business. She has been meeting with the coalition's executive director, Shawn Carney, and been seen outside the Planned Parenthood helping women find alternatives.

KBTX indicates Planned Parenthood officials have hit both Johnson and the pro-life group with restraining orders requiring them not to disclose information about the abortions done at its facility.

Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson, said, "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary."

That Johnson would admit that Planned Parenthood is more accurately described as an abortion business doesn't surprise pro-life advocates.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America released its annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008 and it showed the nation's largest abortion business is getting bigger.

According to Planned Parenthood's latest report, abortions increased to 305,310 abortions up from 289,750 in 2006.

That 5.3 percent increase came at a time when the Guttmacher Institute, it's former research arm, showed abortions were at near-historic lows.

Looking at Planned Parenthood data from 1997 to the present, the increase in government funding corresponds with an increase in the number of abortions. (See image) Read more here.

Pro-Lifers Spent Years Lobbying Abortion Activist Who Quit Planned Parenthood

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 3
, 2009


Bryan, TX ( -- News that the director of a local Planned Parenthood abortion business has drawn national interest and encouraged members of the pro-life community. With the "rest of the story," a pro-life leader tells that the decision to quit Planned Parenthood wasn't a sudden reversal for Abby Johnson.

Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood center in the city that is home to Texas A&M University -- until she turned in her resignation on October 6.

She says she ultimately had a change of heart after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure and realizing that abortion destroyed the life of the baby.

But David Bereit, the national director of the 40 Days for Life pro-life prayer campaign, told on Monday that there is more to the story -- that he and local pro-life advocates had been doing the legwork for years to set up Johnson's ultimate decision to leave the abortion business.

The Planned Parenthood clinic was the location of the first-ever 40 Days for Life campaign in late 2004 and the prayer and fasting initiative has been held outside the doors of Johnson’s former workplace five additional times since 40 Days for Life began its rapid spread to 282 cities across the country.

“This amazing conversion demonstrates the importance of a constant, peaceful prayer presence in front of abortion facilities,” Bereit said.

“From that first campaign in 2004, we've prayed for Abby – and for all abortion workers – that they would come to see what abortion really is, and that they would leave the deadly business. In this case, those prayers have been answered. We are so proud of Abby’s courage to leave the abortion industry and publicly announce her reasons for leaving," he explained.

In Bereit's email, he shared more from Johnson about her decision to quit Planned Parenthood.

“I left on good terms and simply had a change of heart on this issue," she said.

"Over the past few months I had seen a change in motivation regarding the financial impact of abortions and really reached my breaking point after witnessing a particular kind of abortion on an ultrasound," she added. Read more here.

Planned Parenthood Fails to Silence Former Abortion Center Director in Court

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 10
, 2009


Bryan, TX ( -- Planned Parenthood officials have failed in their bid to silence a former abortion center director who quit working for the abortion business after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion. They had pushed for a restraining order on Abby Johnson and a pro-life group that helped her conversion.

Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood center in this southeast Texas city that is home to Texas A&M University.

She turned in her resignation on October 6 after years of a local pro-life group helping her see the problem with abortion. After the ultrasound, she decided to leave.

Planned Parenthood officials hit both Johnson and the Coalition for Life with restraining orders requiring them not to disclose information about the abortions done at its facility.

But, District Judge J.D. Langley issued a ruling today saying Planned Parenthood did not provide sufficient evidence that Johnson breached a confidentiality agreement concerning identity of an abortion practitioner who works at Planned Parenthood.

Judge Langley also ruled that Planned Parenthood provided no evidence to back up its allegations that Johnson took confidential patient records out of Planned Parenthood on the day she resigned.

The judge also denied a Planned Parenthood request to prevent Johnson from seeking any lawsuit until a trial or any other court action had been made. Read more here.

Posted on 11/11/2009 6:38 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
The Lords of Entitlement

COMMENT: DO NOT miss a word of this analysis!  Then tighten your seat belts -- we are in for a fight in the US Senate and we will need 'all hands on deck'.  Another thing we need is to have more people go HERE to register for our email network.  The more people we can educate and engage, the more successful we can be.  Who will YOU recruit??
For highlights of bill, go HERE.

No surprise here:
Democrats Won't Commit to Keeping Stupak Amendment to Stop Abortion Funding

HERE to see a great breakdown of the vote across the country withan interactive map.  See WHERE the 'Yes' votes were.

The Lords of Entitlement

Every medical insurance decision will be subject to rationing by politics.


Speaker Nancy Pelosi defied policy logic and public opinion late Saturday night, ramming through the House a nearly 2,000-page health-care leviathan that counts as the biggest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. As President Obama likes to say, this was a "teachable moment" about our current government.

The vote was 220 to 215, with 39 House Democrats joining all but one Republican in opposition. Mrs. Pelosi had to cajole and bribe her way to the magic 218, and the list of her promises must be stacked to the ceiling. 

The lone Republican, Joseph Cao, represents a Democratic-leaning Louisiana district and extracted a promise that Mr. Obama would increase Medicaid payments to his state, and even then he only voted after Democrats had already hit 218. Let no one suggest this was the "bipartisan" health reform that Mr. Obama has long promised.

The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.

We have little sympathy for the insurers, or for that matter most of the other medical providers who signed on to this process only to claim now to be appalled by the result. The insurance lobby—led by Aetna CEO Ron Williams—made the Faustian bet that it could trade new regulations for more new subsidized customers who would face a tax penalty if they didn't buy their insurance. The Pelosi bill includes the regulation but guts the tax penalty because it's unpopular. Insurers will thus have to cover more sick people with fewer dollars, as healthy folk opt out of coverage until they are sick.

This writing was on the wall months ago, but the insurers chose to play an inside game rather than shape public opinion. Judging by their weekend statement—criticizing the House bill but vowing to seek "bipartisan" reform—they will now throw themselves at the mercy of the Senate. Good luck with that. The real victims are their customers, most of whom will pay more for insurance as the new mandates raise costs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

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 Michigan Democrat Bart 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 Anthony Kennedy over Laurence Silberman for the Supreme Court in 1987 merely because Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic who claimed to personally oppose abortion. Mr. Stupak played the right-to-lifers like a Stradavarius.

The real importance of the abortion uproar is as preview of the politics that will dominate every medical coverage issue if ObamaCare becomes law. Every decision of what to insure or not—when an MRI can be used, or whether a stage-four breast cancer patient can get Avastin or some future expensive drug—will become subject to political intervention over moral disputes or budget constraints. Heretofore, these decisions have largely been made between a doctor and patient. This is the real "right to life" issue. 

Perhaps the most unsurprising news in this drama was the collapse of the Blue Dog "deficit hawks." Enough of them always cave in the end to give Mrs. Pelosi her way. It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate.

But Max Baucus's Finance Committee bill includes a similar gimmick of making the numbers look good by using 10 years of new taxes to finance only seven years of spending (six in the House). The deficits explode in the second decade and beyond in both bills. Read more here.
Posted on 11/10/2009 6:21 AM by Bobbie Patray
Sunday, 8 November 2009
SPECIAL: Pelosi-Care Passes US House

Well, Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats pulled off the deal late last night and are probably gloating big-time this morning.  The US Constitution was 'folded, spindled and mutilated' by 220 US Congressmen when they VIOLATED their oath and voted for this legislation that will mandate health care, fine those who don't buy it, cost American many jobs, will limit care, allows ACORN involvement, provides for 13 tax increases--go
HERE for more details.

The final vote was
: 219 democrats and one Republican (GOP Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao of Louisiana) voting YES; 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans voting NO.

From Michelle Malkin:  Cao is the one who took over corruptocrat Democrat William Jefferson’s seat. I had reservations about him on election night because of his soft-on-immigration views. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt. If he could stand strong on limited government and fiscal conservatism, it would be worth it.
Well, since he was elected, Cao has
backed the S-CHIP expansion, the $108 billion IMF bailout, and the omni-waste spending bill. And he voted to rebuke GOP Rep. Joe Wilson for calling out President Obama on his health care lies. Read more here.

Voting YES: 
Steve Cohen and Jim Cooper.
Voting NO:  Republicans
Marsha Blackburn, John Duncan, Phil Roe,Zach Wamp.
Lincoln Davis, Bart Gordon, John Tanner.

Just thinking:  Cohen was always an ardent supporter; but Cooper continued to make noises about opposing PelosiCare.  One does have to wonder if
liberal efforts to unseat him
played a role in his decision......hmmm.  Could the votes of Davis, Gordon and Tanner have anything to do with each already having declared viable opponents for 2010?...hmmmm.

As you know one of the BIG objections to H.R. 3962 was that it not only covered abortions, enrollees were REQUIRED to pay for them. 
Bart Stupak (D-MI), leader of pro-life Democrats, was successful in negotiating with the Democrat leadership, the opportunity to vote on his amendment that would essentially exclude abortion coverage from their bill except for insurance policies paid exclusively with private money. Now bear in mind without this amendment, it was expected that the pro-life Democrats would have bolted and the government takeover of our health care would have failed. However, it was put before the floor where is passed

Voting YES:  Republicans Marsha Blackburn, John Duncan, Phil Roe, Zach Wamp.
Democrats Jim Cooper, Lincoln Davis, Bart Gordon, John Tanner.
Voting NO: Democrat Steve Cohen

Thinking again:  So.....was 'Stupak' a good thing?  Well let's think about that. It WAS good, in that it reflected the strength of pro-lifers to impact legislation at the federal level, BUT it also provided 'political cover' for some Democrats in the 2010 election cycle who normally do not vote pro-life. (See Tennessee list above.)  Why did Pelosi allow the vote?  It served HER purposes to get a completely TERRIBLE bill voted out of the House. 

What happens next?  Should the Senate pass some form of Obama-Reid Health Care, the two versions would go to a Conference Committee for resolution. The chances of the Democrat leadership allowing 'Stupak' to stay in the Conference Committee Report is highly questionable. The Report would come back to each body for a final vote, then we will be left with the task of trying to defeat the report.  If 'Stupak' is removed, would the pro-life Democrats buck their leadership and vote against the report?  Who knows?  If it remains, defeating the report becomes much more problematic.
So, our involvement is even more critical as we focus on the US Senate in the days ahead.

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.


The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit. 

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions. Read more here.

Health Care Bill Passes House, Includes vital protections for LGBT families

The House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, by a vote of 220 to 215. Thanks to lobbying efforts by the Human Rights Campaign and leadership from Representative Jim McDermott, several LGBT provisions were included in the legislation. According to a statement from the Human Rights Campaign: Read more here.

McCain Says Health Care Bill Would Face Constitutional Challenge
Friday, November 06, 2009

By Edwin Mora

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) (AP photo)
(Washington, D.C.) -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted on Thursday that there will be a constitutional challenge to the provision in the health care bill under consideration in Congress that would require all Americans to buy health insurance.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans purchase any good or service. 

When asked by on Thursday where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance, McCain said, “That is an excellent question and I’m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.”
Read more here.

Bachmann's House Call Rocked

The “House Call on Washington” press conference turned rally yesterday brought people from all over the country by the thousands to Washington to petition their representatives for redress of their grievances.  Over 25,000 made it to the Capitol City on just a few days’ notice.

“It’s a beautiful, patriotic crowd that came out in the middle of a work week at great sacrifice for many of them from long distances,” nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin told HUMAN EVENTS.  “These are the Patrick Henrys.  These are the people who are going to keep the pressure on and I’m very, very honored to be with them.”

Dozens of folks at the front, left side of the stage area were holding up Levin’s best-selling book, Liberty and Tyranny. 

“You know, I’m really blessed,” Levin added.  “It’s a magnificent country.  We have a little problem we’ve got to take care of right now, and I think we will.”
Read more here.
Posted on 11/08/2009 5:00 PM by Bobbie Patray
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30