The Right Lane update 4.30.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

To subscribe, see note below

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sacramento couple fights to get their baby boy back from authorities

SACRAMENTO, CA - A Sacramento family was torn apart after a 5-month-old baby boy was taken from his parents following a visit to the doctor. The young couple thought their problems were behind them after their son had a scare at the hospital, but once they got home their problems got even worse. It all began nearly two weeks ago, when Anna Nikolayev and her husband Alex took their 5-month-old boy Sammy to Sutter Memorial Hospital to be treated for flu symptoms, but they didn't like the care Sammy was getting.   For example, one day Anna asked why a nurse was giving her son antibiotics. "I asked her, for what is that? And she's like, 'I don't know.' I'm like, 'you're working as a nurse, and you don't even know what to give to my baby for what,'" Anna explained. According to Anna, a doctor later said Sammy shouldn't have been on the antibiotics. Anna said Sammy suffers from a heart murmur and had been seeing a doctor at Sutter for regular treatment since he was born. After Sammy was treated for flu symptoms last week, doctors at Sutter admitted him to the pediatric ICU to monitor his condition. After a few days, Anna said doctors began talking about heart surgery.

"If we got the one mistake after another, I don't want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don't feel safe," Anna said. Anna argued with doctors about getting a second opinion. Without a proper discharge, she finally took Sammy out of the hospital to get a second opinion at Kaiser Permanente. "The police showed up there. They saw that the baby was fine," Anna said. "They told us that Sutter was telling them so much bad stuff that they thought that this baby is dying on our arms."

Medical records from the doctor treating Sammy at Kaiser Permanente said the baby as clinically safe to go home with his parents. The doctor added, "I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents." "So police saw the report from the doctors, said, 'okay guys, you have a good day,' and they walked away," Anna said. Anna said the next day police and child protective services showed up on her doorstep. Alex Nikolayev said he met them outside a short time after they arrived. "I was pushed against the building, smacked down. I said, 'am I being placed under arrest?' He smacked me down onto the ground, yelled out, 'I think I got the keys to the house,'" Alex said. Then police let themselves inside. On home video shot with a camera Anna set up herself, police can be seen entering her front door on Wednesday.  "I'm going to grab your baby, and don't resist, and don't fight me ok?" a Sacramento police officer said in the video. "He's like, 'okay let your son go,' so I had to let him go, and he grabbed my arm, so I couldn't take Sammy. And they took Sammy, and they just walked away," Anna said. When News10 spoke with police, they said talk to CPS; CPS did not say much about the case. Just before 6 p.m. Thursday, Anna said that a CPS social worker told her, the reason they took Sammy is because of severe neglect; however, the social worker didn't elaborate on that neglect. Sutter Memorial was asked to comment on the story, but the hospital said the case was with CPS and law enforcement and they would have to comment on the case. CPS said they can't specifically comment on this case because of privacy law, but CPS spokesperson Laura McCasland said, "We conduct a risk assessment of the child's safety and rely heavily on the direction of health care providers." "It seems like parents have no right whatsoever," Alex said. On Thursday, Anna and Alex were allowed a one hour visitation with Sammy; he's currently in protective custody at Sutter Memorial Hospital. "His smile, it's everything for me," Anna said. "I was so happy to see him." Anna and Alex have a court hearing scheduled for Monday. "We did everything," Anna said. "We went from one hospital to another. We just wanted to be safe, that he is in good hands."  Do you get the dichotomy? Government will override this mother's parental rights while upholding killing babies in the whom?  Tyrannical misguided government?

~~~~~~

25% Think Most College Professors Share Values of U.S. Society

Full-time college professors are generally regarded as politically liberal by most Americans, and only one-in-four think most professors favor the values of American society.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 25% of U.S. Adults believe most full-time college professors share the values of American society. Forty percent (40%) think most full-time professors oppose American values. A sizable number (34%) are not sure. Are you alarmed yet???

~~~~~~

ESPN's Chris Broussard Calls Homosexuality a Sin During Jason Collins Segment (Video)

In a special one-hour episode covering the immediate impact of Washington Wizards center Jason Collins' coming out as a gay man on the cover of Sports Illustrated, Broussard briefly started discussing his personal beliefs about homosexuality. "If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that that's a sin," said Broussard, comparing homosexuality to any other sex outside of marriage. "If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ." Broussard was on Outside the Lines to discuss the potential ramifications of an openly gay player in the NBA, and he noted that there were others who felt the way he did who might have reservations about discussing them openly.

"As a Christian, I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin," said Broussard. "There are a lot of Christians in the NBA, and just because they don't agree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant." The 44-year-old ESPN Magazine columnist, who previously wrote that the NBA was "ready" for an openly gay player, has appeared on the network since 2004. When the interview veered toward the more incendiary comments, he notably started falling over some of his words and attempted to pad his religious references with some more diplomatic statements. "A lot of people understand that it's a politically correct climate," said Broussard. "I've had some players say that they would be uncomfortable with a gay player in the locker room … but no one is going to necessarily come out and say anything. ... If he doesn't get signed next year, it probably won't be because he came out as gay. He's towards the end of his career and not that good anymore."

ESPN did not immediately respond to The Hollywood Reporter's request for comment, and Broussard already is drawing a considerable amount of fire online.

UPDATE: ESPN issued the following statement to THR. “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news.  ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement."

UPDATE: Broussard took to Twitter to expand on his comments:

"Today on OTL, as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today's news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA." 

Note: Broussard will likely be forced to step down.  In the world of PC, no other points of view are allowed.

~~~~~~

The French Are Revolting Against “Gay Marriage” by Mark Horne

I can’t wait until some snooty restaurant refuses to offer French Bread on its menu, but insists on calling it “Freedom Bread,” the way populist pro-war fast-food owners started only selling “freedom fries.” The French, for all their liberalism and Leftism, are completely opposed to their government’s redefinition of marriage to include same sex relationships. In fact, the government response was violent and nasty. As the Spectator reports:

“Opposition to the bill has electrified the middle classes, the young and much of provincial France. On Sunday 24 March, in the freezing cold, the 4km stretch from the Arche de la Défense to the Arc de Triomphe was full of people protesting against the bill. On 13 January, also chilly, the Champ de Mars was similarly crammed. When Johnny Hallyday or the World Cup got crowds like that, people talked of two million. But the police, evidently acting under political orders, have claimed that both demonstrations — which are without doubt the largest public movements in French history — garnered a few hundred thousand at most. Credible accusations surfaced in Le Figaro on Monday night that the film taken from police helicopters on 24 March and released by the Prefecture has been manipulated to reduce the apparent numbers of demonstrators… Had the mobilisation in Paris taken place in Tahrir Square, the world’s media would be unanimous that a ‘French spring’ was about to sweep away an outdated power structure, especially since the demonstrations (including the daily ones held throughout last week, which culminated in a massive impromptu rally of 270,000 people on Sunday afternoon) are attended by an overwhelming number of people in their late teens and early twenties. By the same token, had the Moscow security forces tear-gassed children and mothers — as the CRS did on the Champs Elysées on 24 March — or had they dragged away by their necks youngsters who were peacefully sitting on the lawn after the demo — as the riot police did on the night of 18 April — then the worldwide moral policemen on CNN would be frantically firing their rhetorical revolvers. Such repression would be interpreted as a sign that the regime was desperate. Indeed, had the Ukrainian police removed the ‘tent village’ which formed in central Kiev at the time of the Orange Revolution in 2004 — as the Paris police bundled more than 60 anti-gay marriage campers into detention on the night of 14 April — then one suspects that Nato tanks would have rolled over the Dnieper to their rescue.”

I don’t remember reading anything about these events in the mainstream media. It seems clear that France, no matter how “liberal” really does think that a marriage is about the right to start a family. France never had homosexual adoption until now and the “civil union” law was used by heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. The French government’s commitment to changing all this seems to stem from a need to make France conform to other nations in the European Union. What this indicates to me is that we should not assume that liberals are impervious to arguments about same sex “marriage.” We need to not give up or assume the worse. And we need to pray that France is indeed, as the Spectator claims, on the verge of a revolution. After the law was passed, many French rioted in the streets.

~~~~~~

Pentagon Recruits Anti-Christian Extremist To Help Craft Tolerance Policy by Frank Camp

Over the years, I have seen much of what makes people tick in regard to political leanings. I have discovered that the smarter someone is, the easier it is to have a rational conversation with them. As the curve goes down, and you begin to deal with less intelligent people, rational conversation becomes more difficult. But more than intelligence, passion plays a large role in whether or not a person is able to convey their beliefs without needless aggression and posturing. I have come across people who are so passionate; they need to believe in something so badly; that they have lost any ability to deal with opposing views in a calm and rational manner. It just so happens that those who have this fiery, directionless passion often tend to come from the Left of the aisle. The Pentagon, under the Obama administration, is developing new policies regarding religious tolerance in the military. They could have devised a plan that would really make a difference; help eliminate needless bigotry and unpleasantness from the military. They could have taken a reasoned and balanced approach; bringing in multiple people with opposing views, to really reach an understanding as to how they should proceed. Of course, they did not do that. Instead, they brought in a man named Mikey Weinstein.

Mikey Weinstein is the kind of man someone like me would find insufferable; the kind of man with such aggressive passion that he is unpleasant to be around. That’s not necessarily a terrible thing–if you can take it–but Mikey’s passion is very focused; Mikey’s passion is anti-Christian propaganda. On April 16th, in an article written for The Huffington Post, Mikey Weinstein says some pretty incredible things. He takes a machete to Christians and Christianity in general; rather happily slicing his way through the Christian faith and those who practice it. The following is an excerpt. It’s a bit long, but worth the read:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, let me tell you of monsters and monstrous wrongs. And let me tell you what these bloody monsters thrive on…I founded the…Military Religious Freedom Foundation to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military…Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces…These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C’mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? … Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters…Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as ‘family values’ and ‘religious liberty.’”

Mikey goes on to compare Christians with 60′s era racists, and rip apart Christianity in the military and in general. He even suggests that chaplains who proselytize are ”treasonous,” and should be punished. Finally, he calls Christian ministry in the military “spiritual rape;” comparing it to physical, sexual assault.  Are you afraid yet?

~~~~~~

SC Congressman DESTROYS Eric Holder’s Bogus Racism Charges on Voter ID

After viewing this evisceration of the DOJ (and indeed, the entire Democrat Party and all its left-wing fanboys in the blogosphere), one is simply baffled why every GOP member isn’t out there with as much principled tenacity. SHARE this stellar video to counter the false allegations regarding racism and voter ID! Watch

~~~~~~

Russian Scientists Predict Onset of Global Cooling James M. Taylor, J.D.

A prolonged decline in solar output will begin sometime around 2040 and subject the Earth to global cooling that will last 200-250 years, scientists at Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory report. "Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease,” explained Pulkovo scientist Yuri Nagovitsyn. “The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. Nagovitsyn said the cooling will be substantial, though not quite as strong as the cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum in the depths of the Little Ice Age during the late 1600s.  The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century,” said Nagovitsyn.  Nagovitsyn explained that variations in solar output are a significant factor in global climate change.   “Once solar activity declines, the temperature drops,” Nagovitsyn noted.

~~~~~~

Democrats Still Denying Washington Has a Spending Problem

In case you haven’t checked lately, the U.S. National Debt has hit a whopping $16.8 trillion and is climbing higher by the second. To make matters worse, President Obama recently proposed another increase in spending for his 2014 budget. Why? He doesn’t think Washingon has a spending problem and neither do many of his fellow Democrats helping to push his agenda. Call them the debt crisis dissenters.

The two parties are miles apart on how to cut the deficit and national debt: Republicans want to slash spending even more. Democrats want to raise revenue. And then there are the other Democrats — the ones who reject the entire premise of the current high-stakes fiscal fight. There’s no short-term deficit problem, they say, and there isn’t even an urgent debt crisis that requires immediate attention.

~~~~~~

Explosive Report Contradicts the Obama Administration’s Benghazi Story in a Big Way Jason Howerton

The U.S. government had the ability to “react and respond” to the Benghazi terrorist attack and could have had forces on the ground before the second wave of the assault began, a special operator with knowledge of the response told Fox News in an exclusive interview. Due to the explosive nature of his allegations, the special ops member asked to remain anonymous. “I know for a fact that C 110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise, not in the region of northern Africa, but in Europe. And they had the ability to react and respond,” he told Fox News. The C 110 is a 40-man Special Ops force capable of rapid response and deployment, a group trained specifically for an event like the Benghazi attack, Fox News reports. The unit was training in Croatia on Sept. 11, 2012, just 3.5 hours away from Benghazi. “They would have been there before the second attack,” the anonymous special operator said. “They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfil out of the problem situation.” He continued: “Nobody knew how it was going to develop, and you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say, ‘Hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because the security was unknown situation.’ If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum you send forces there to facilitate the exfil or medical injuries. We could have sent a C 130 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.”

~~~~~~

~~~~~~

Solution to Terror? Shut Down Mosques

Interesting theory. Those connected to terror should certainly be shut down.

A “human rights” organization is calling on government authorities to shut down three U.S. mosques it claims are not merely religious centers, but political entities and “breeding grounds for jihad terror.” The American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI, explains its demands are part of an 18-point plan to protect the nation from Islamic terror in the wake of the Boston  Marathon bombings. AFDI Executive Director Pamela Geller said in a statement, “In accord with those calls for responsible law enforcement regarding subversive activities in U.S. mosques, we are asking that government and law enforcement officials launch immediate investigations into the Islamic Society of Boston, the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque of Fairfax County, Va., and the Noor Center of Columbus, Ohio.” “Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Shariah that conflict with constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed,” AFDI insists.

AFDI argues shutting down the mosques wouldn’t be a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment protecting freedom of religion, because Islam is not merely a religion, but a “political system.”

Why? or Why not?

~~~~~~

GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo Purchases By Elizabeth Flock

The Government Accountability Office tells Whispers it is now investigating large ammunition purchases made by the Department of Homeland Security. Chuck Young, a spokesman for GAO, says the investigation of the purchases is "just getting underway." The congressional investigative agency is jumping into the fray just as legislation was introduced in both the Senate and the House to restrict the purchase of ammo by some government agencies (except the Department of Defense). The AMMO Act, introduced Friday, would prevent agencies from buying more ammunition if "stockpiles" are greater than what they were in previous administrations. Donelle Harder, a spokeswoman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who introduced the legislation in the Senate, tells Whispers the bill would also require GAO to share the findings of its report on DHS purchases with Congress. Officials at DHS have denied to both Whispers and lawmakers that it is stockpiling ammunition. The Associated Press reported in February that DHS wanted to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, but DHS officials testified last week it was only planning to buy up to 750 million.

~~~~~~

† † † † † † † † † † †

The Right Lane update 4.29.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

To subscribe, see note below

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Americans fear government more than terror

Astonishing poll results for 1st time since 9/11 hijackings by Drew Zahn

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe. Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.” A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11. For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes. Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.  A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude. “Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?” The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough. And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation:

• Bucking the trend, 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.
• Forty-seven percent of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43 percent in favor.
• Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.

Giving  up your freedom is all you will get.  As  we see time and time again, the Government is severely limited in its ability to protect its citizens.  Especially from crazed or radicalized people hell bent on killing innocents!

~~~~~~~

Recession Spreads in Europe, Threatens the USA  by Gary North

The recession in Europe has spread into every large nation. Still, price are rising. The European Central Bank is powerless. It has officially set lending rates at 0.75%. Still, the economies are crashing. Greece has a 27% unemployment rate. So does Spain. Now there is talk of a rate cut by the ECB. To which I respond: So what? If a business will not borrow at 0.75%, why would it borrow at 0.5%? Why would a one-third cut encourage businesses to change their policies? With rates this low, there is nothing the ECB can do about it. It can buy more IOUs from governments. But banks in Europe are imitating banks in the USA. They are adding to excess reserves. This reduces the money multiplier, i.e., fractional reserves. The economy does not recover as expected. Prices do not rise much, but neither does official economic growth.  The Keynesians are stuck. They recommend larger government deficits. They decry “austerity,” meaning reductions in government spending. But the governments are facing huge deficits: falling revenues and rising welfare expenditures. They have to find ways to cut spending. Keynesianism rests on a theory: “Government deficits overcome recession.” But this time, it’s clearly not working. So, they call for even larger deficits. Keynesians call for a larger ECB stimulus. The ECB may respond, but Europe’s economy will remain in a slump. Europe appears to have reached what David Stockman has called peak private debt. So has the USA. But growth in both regions relies on increased private debt to fund economic growth.

~~~~~~

Hidden truths and facts about the Amnesty Bill

This is a summary of a Special Three Part Report, by Joseph R. John on the new 884 page “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act,” currently being negotiated in the U.S. Senate by ‘The Gang of Eight’ Senators.

True Number of Immigrants

Eight years ago while serving with the FBI, the press often reported that there were 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, information I had access to indicated the numbers were higher. Today, the left of center liberal media establishment still reports there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, indicating for over the last 8 years not one single illegal immigrant has entered the United States. Between 700,000 and 1.5 million illegal immigrants enter the US and take residency each year. If the lower figure of 700,000 were used, then 5.6 million illegal immigrants would have entered the US over the last 8 years; using the low estimate of how many illegal immigrants have taken residency over the last 8 years and the 11 million figure the press has been using for many years, a very conservative figure of 16.6 million illegal immigrants is a more correct number that are in the country according to the Wikipedia study. Another source for the number of estimated illegal immigrants in the US is to use the number listed in the NPR’s Study Details Lives of Illegal Immigrants in U.S., of 20 million which is a corrected number often used today in other editorials.

Using both studies, the most probable average number of illegall Immigrates in the US today is somewhere between 16.6 and 20 million; the conservative figure would be 18+ million, not the 11 million figure promulgated by the press year after year. The 844 page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act currently being negotiated in the US Senate by the gang of 8 Senators keeps referring to 11 million illegal immigrants, not the 18+ million illegal immigrates currently residing in the US.

~~~~~~

Time to make teaching a real profession

CHICAGO – Teachers have somehow gotten themselves exempt from public accountability as a profession, such as the independent requirements doctors, nurses, accountants, and others must meet.

The results for 60 million students, their parents, and the general public has been dismaying for too long. This key current defect has been fostered by the main teacher labor unions, the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers. Hair stylists, barbers, plumbers, doctors, nurses, certified public accountants, etc., are all accountable professions regulated by state agencies. They are accustomed to this regulatory licensing regime, which has operated smoothly for decades.  The agencies set minimum education/training standards, investigate complaints from the public and impose discipline.

But labor union lobbyists have diluted state teacher licensing requirements, keeping teachers away from responsibility of minimum standards. Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s proposal to require prospective teachers to earn at least a 3.0 GPA and above-average ACT score was refused by the state College Board because that would disqualify half the young people currently studying to teach. Other professions in the education realm have also gotten themselves similarly exempt:  principals, administrators, superintendents, librarians, counselors, clerks, custodians, etc.  Their labor unions have worked their power so far: The average elementary school teacher has a math and verbal SAT score of 960, below the national average of 1,000.

~~~~~~

Live Action Undercover Video Exposes Just How Rampant Late Term Abortions Are by Tim Brown

Live Action has released another shocking video, in which they are exposing the rampant procedures of late term abortions. At Freedom Outpost, we call them murders. Barack Obama recently said “God to bless you Planned Parenthood” (obviously he was talking about the false god, Allah, of the bloody, death cult religion of Islam). The video is the first in a series titled Inhumane: Undercover in America’s Late-Term Abortion Industry. The video was captured at the Dr. Emily Women’s Health Center in the Bronx. The undercover investigator was seeking an abortion at 23 weeks. New York allows abortions to be performed until the 24th week and deems them legal.  Live Action states:

Gosnell is not alone. Videos document the blatantly inhuman and barbaric acts of abortionists leaving crying babies to die, or even killing the newborns themselves.

Live Action President Lila Rose said in a statement:

“The gruesome and inhuman practices exposed in Gosnell’s ‘House of Horrors’ are business as usual for the abortion industry in America. These children’s lives are brutally destroyed when they are the most defenseless. This isn’t ‘choice’; this is murder.”

What you are about to see here will make your skin crawl and it’s not because it is graphic in video, but in description and the callousness by the women filmed explaining the barbarism associated with these murders is horrific. How can we allows such people to even walk the streets among us? Their ability to try and justify and rationalize their murderous actions are, as Live Action notes, inhuman.  Watch

~~~~~~

Fastest-growing faith on planetis not what you think!
If you have not already heard about the biggest religious movement in over 1500 years, you will - very soon. It's the fastest-growing faith on the planet. And it's not Islam. Millions of miracles and an explosion of small, Spirit-powered churches are heralding this "Mega shift" in Christianity, which has been described as a "vast, cleansing storm" coming to American from abroad. This biblically-inspired, evangelical Christianity is sweeping through places like China, Africa, India and Southeast Asia – making it, by far, the fastest growing faith on the planet. In  the book "Megashift," author Jim Rutz coins a new phrase to define this fast-growing segment of the population. He calls them "core apostolic" – or "the new saints who are at the heart of the mushrooming kingdom of God."  Rutz makes the point that Christianity is overlooked as the fastest-growing faith in the world because most surveys look at the traditional Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church while ignoring Christian believers who have no part of either.  He says there are 707 million "switched-on disciples" who fit into this new category and that this "church" is exploding in growth.  "The growing core of Christianity crosses theological lines and includes 707 million born-again people who are increasing by 8 percent a year," he says. So fast is this group growing that, under current trends, according to Rutz, the entire world will be composed of such believers by the year 2032. "There will be pockets of resistance and unforeseen breakthroughs," writes Rutz. "Still, at the rate we're growing now, to be comically precise, there would be more Christians than people by the autumn of 2032, about 8.2 billion."

According to the author, until 1960, Western evangelicals outnumbered non-Western evangelicals – mostly Latinos, blacks and Asians – by two to one. As of 2000, non-Western evangelicals outnumbered Westerners by four to one. That moved to seven to one this year. "There are now more missionaries sent from non-Western nations than Western nations," he writes. This trend, says Rutz, has been missed by Westerners because the explosive growth is elsewhere. Hundreds of millions of these Christians are simply not associated with the institutional churches at all. They meet in homes. They meet underground. They meet in caves. They meet, he says, in secret. They are persecuted my Muslims by the thousands and our country stands by silently!

~~~~~~

A new front for gun background checks: The Ballot

After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters. While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers. Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implication.  Watch your own state legislature and make sure they get your message.

~~~~~~

Poster-Clown For Why Congress Gets No Respect

Another idiot voted into Congress by other idiots!  Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) was previously best known for his performance during a defense budget hearing in 2010. During that meeting Johnson opined that the island of Guam, because of its relatively small size, would tip over and capsize due to overpopulation. No, he wasn’t joking. If this blinding display of genius isn’t enough for you, you are in luck. Johnson is not through making your day. On April 25^th, Johnson spoke up again, once again taking the House floor. Was he redeeming himself by tackling critical fiscal concerns? Focusing, perhaps, on attacks against Constitutional freedoms? No. According to National Review Online, Hank Johnson “stood up for some of the most important victims of congressional gridlock: children’s birthday parties and comedians trying to make their voices high-pitched.” He was, in short, discussing a bill to continue the federal government’s sales from the National Helium Reserve. You read that correctly — helium. In an America currently besieged on all sides, the Honorable Hank Johnson addressed Congress by stating: “Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a world without balloons.” A world without balloons.

~~~~~~~

Low Information Voters
There is proof, just start reading the labels on the things you buy.  Yesterday my wife bought some liquid hand soap that smelled simply delicious.  In capital letters on the bottle was this warning "THIS IS NOT FOOD, DO NOT EAT".  Folks, you cannot make this stuff up.  And more, these folks are voting!!

~~~~~~

The Hypocrisy Of Gay-“Marriage” Advocates

A liberal says, “I support gay marriage because I support the freedom to marry whoever you love.” So I say, “Will you sign my petition to allow me to marry my two sisters? All three of us are so deeply in love.” And they suddenly become Puritans. This proves that their support of gay marriage has nothing to do with equality (they only say it does because it makes them feel righteous, justified, romantic, sanctimonious); it has everything to do with selfishness, and in some cases it has to do with actively seeking to destroy the very notion of marriage in the first place, as one gay-rights activist recently admitted). They want to destroy marriage because, as they know, marriage is a religious institution. And liberals by and large seek to eliminate all religions that differ from their own: Secularism. Which leads me believe that the religious could coexist with the secular more happily if only the secular would permit it.

~~~~~~

Donors have a right to question what colleges value  Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University
Over the past 10 years, I have written columns variously titled “Academic Cesspools,” “Academic Dishonesty,” “The Shame of Higher Education,” “Academic Rot” and “Indoctrination of Our Youth.” Therefore, I was not surprised by David Feith’s April 5 Wall Street Journal article, “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World.”

In it, Feith tells of a golf course conversation between Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein. Klingenstein voiced disapproval of campus celebration of diversity and ethnic differences while there’s “not enough celebration of our common American identity.”   Because Klingenstein wouldn’t help finance the college’s diversity craze, Mills insinuated, in remarks to the student body, that Klingenstein is a racist. Mills also told students: “We must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community.... Diversity of ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our educational mission.”

Klingenstein decided to check out Mills’ commitment to diverse perspectives by commissioning the National Association of Scholars to examine Bowdoin’s intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity. Its report – “What Does Bowdoin Teach?” – isn’t pretty. There are “no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.” Even history majors aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the history department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history; the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.

Some of the 37 seminars designated for freshmen are “Affirmative Action and U.S. Society,” “Fictions of Freedom,” “Racism,” “Queer Gardens,” “Sexual Life of Colonialism” and “Modern Western Prostitutes.” As for political diversity, the report estimates that “four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative.” During the 2012 presidential campaign, 100 percent of faculty donations went to President Barack Obama.

Despite political bias and mediocrity, in 2012, Bowdoin was ranked sixth among the nation’s liberal arts colleges in U.S. News & World Report and was ranked 14th on Forbes magazine’s list of America’s top colleges. That ought to tell us how much faith should be put in college rankings.  I applaud Klingenstein for not making a contribution to a college agenda that is so common today. Wealthy donors are generous but tend to be lazy and uninformed in their giving.  They give large sums of money that winds up supporting college agendas that are contemptuous of donors’ values, such as enlightened racism, anti-capitalism and Marxism. A rough rule of thumb to discover modern-day racism is to search a college’s website to see whether it has vice presidents or deans of diversity and diversity programs. If so, keep your money. Recent evidence has emerged that some colleges have become bold enough to hire former terrorists to teach and possibly indoctrinate our young people. That’s the case with Columbia University in the hiring of convicted Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin, who spent 22 years in prison for the murder of two policemen and a Brink’s guard. She now holds a professorship at Columbia’s School of Social Work. Her Weather Underground comrade William Ayers is a professor of education on the faculty of the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Unrepentant, in the wake of 9/11, Ayers told us: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Bernardine Dohrn, his wife, is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. Her stated mission is to overthrow capitalism. Ayers and Dohrn, as well as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are people who hate our nation and are longtime associates of President Obama’s. That might help in explaining our president’s vision.

What we see on college campuses represents a dereliction of duty by boards of trustees, which bear the ultimate responsibility. Wealthy donors who care about the fraud of higher education should recognize that there’s nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of college administrators.

~~~~~~

On Marriage Equality: Live and Let Die by Michael Minkoff

One thing you’ve got to hand to the libertarian approach: it’s pretty easy to understand. Live and let live. Keep the civil government out of it. A lot of libertarians like to talk about how the definition of marriage is not for the civil government to make. They believe marriage is a private and consensual contract, and it therefore shouldn’t matter what the civil government says about it. One libertarian group said, “Real equality would be a government that is not in charge of marriage.”  I agree that the civil government is not ultimately responsible to define marriage, yet at the same time, the government must have a clear definition of marriage in order to enforce the private stipulations of marriage contracts. Civil government may not be the source of our definition for marriage, but it must enforce our definition. The civil government should not be responsible for marrying people, but it must know all the people in its jurisdiction who are married. Because a distinction must be made between having jurisdiction over (“being in charge”) and having jurisdiction in. The civil government, even in a libertarian system, has the responsibility to enforce the stipulations of contracts. And marriage is a good bit more than just your everyday contract. When a married couple produces children and wealth, all of a sudden things start getting very complicated. This means the civil government needs to have a clear working definition of marriage. It needs to know who is, and who is not, married. It needs to have a legal system for what happens when people break marriage commitments. In other words, the libertarian system for marriage equality works really well until it doesn’t. As long as people are reasonable and decent, the civil government need not be involved. But civil government, especially in a libertarian system, is not around for the normal times or the good and reasonable people. It’s around for the times when everything and everyone goes to pot. A good people need almost no government. But, in case you haven’t noticed, we are not living among a good and decent people.

~~~~~~

House Panel Rips Obama Over Drilling Permits

The House Natural Resources Committee has issued a statement lambasting the Obama administration for dragging its feet in issuing permits for oil and gas drilling on federal lands. According to the committee’s statement, it takes the Bureau of Land Management an average of 307 days to process a permit to drill, nearly twice as long as the 154 days it took in 2005. In Colorado, it takes just 27 days to approve a permit on state and private lands, and in North Dakota, just 10 days. To put the federal delay into perspective, the committee claimed that in 307 days, a person can drive from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles 154 times, watch the movie “Die Hard” 3,349 times, or hike the entire Appalachian Trail — twice. “President Obama has touted that U.S. oil and natural gas production is at its highest levels in years, but he’s only telling half the story,” according to the committee’s statement. “The recent increase in U.S. oil and gas production can all be attributed to state and private lands — not federal.”  The committee responded at the time: “Facts are stubborn things, and that statement simply is not true.”

~~~~~~

Obama’s Cap on Savings Would ‘Penalize Success’

President Obama’s proposal to limit tax-preferred retirement savings would penalize success and patience in favor of “the nebulous concept of fairness,” according to one analysis of the unprecedented plan.

Obama’s fiscal 2014 budget has a section stating: "Individual Retirement Accounts and other tax-preferred savings vehicles are intended to help middle-class families save for retirement. But under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”  The budget would limit an individual’s total balance in tax-preferred accounts — which include IRAs, Roth IRAs, and 401(k) plans — to an amount sufficient to finance a maximum annuity of $205,000 per year in retirement, or “about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013,” the budget estimates.   The budget itself predicts that capping contributions will increase revenue by only $9 billion over 10 years, which will cover the current deficit for about three days, The American observes.  Plus, the revenue raised isn’t new revenue. Taxes paid earlier because of the inability to put money into a tax-preferred plan would otherwise be paid later when the money is withdrawn.  Another problem: “The budget offers few details on how the government would enforce this cap across a worker’s various accounts, but you can bet it would be complicated,” The Wall Street Journal said.  “Right now the government doesn’t track tax-deferred account balances. Financial firms don’t have to send IRS 1099 forms to investors unless there’s a distribution. So the IRS would get new power to impose new burdens on millions of taxpayers.”  Hurst concludes: “There have always been income limits on contributions to the various tax-deferred accounts, but this is the first time there will be limits tied to the dollars in the account.  “The proposed limits directly penalize success in the management of money and the patience to let money grow.”

~~~~~~

Only 16% Know Anyone Affected by Sequester Flight Delays

Congress cited public outrage as the reason for moving swiftly to end flight delays caused by the sequester. However, very few Americans were actually impacted. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 16% of all American Adults knew anyone affected by the delays. However, upper-income Americans were far more likely to have been impacted than those who earn less. And, of course, most Members of Congress fly home on a regular basis.

~~~~~~

Benghazi Report Revives Troubling Questions  By Michael Barone

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"    That was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's angry response to a question about the State Department's account of the attack on the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2012. Her response was cheered by leftist commentators on MSNBC. Righteous indignation is so attractive. But of course it makes a difference. Hillary Clinton is leading in polls for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and general election. It's always legitimate to examine the performance of a front-runner for the presidency. And of the president himself. You can find such an examination in the Interim Progress Report that five House Republican committee chairmen released last Wednesday. Democrats complain that this is a partisan effort. Sure, but Democrats are free to present their own view of the facts. My sense is that they would rather squelch critical examination of Benghazi and the Obama administration's response, as they did with the help of most of the press during the 2012 presidential campaign.  The interim report sets out copious evidence of the rash of security threats in Libya during 2012. There were more than 200 "security incidents" between June 2011 and July 2012 in Libya, 50 of them in Benghazi, it reports. "In a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012," the Interim Report reads, "the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets in the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi." Later requests from Stevens after he replaced Cretz in May were also denied. That contradicts Clinton's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013. She said the cable traffic never made its way to her. If so, why was her name appended to a response? Maybe there's an explanation in the internal processes of the State Department. And, it should be said, high officials often make decisions that with hindsight seem obvious mistakes. But she has given us just an exclamation, not an explanation.  And, as the Interim Report goes on to explain, the accounts given by the Obama administration at the time were misleading -- deliberately so.    

It noted that State immediately reported the attack to the White House Situation Room and two hours later noted an al-Qaida affiliate's claim of responsibility. There was no mention of a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video.  Yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and press secretary Jay Carney spoke repeatedly for days later of a video and a protest. Clinton assured one victim's family member that the video-maker was being prosecuted.

In the meantime, a CIA draft of talking points for the House intelligence committee was edited at the behest of State Department officials. Omitted were references to previous Benghazi attacks, the al-Qaida affiliate in Benghazi and intelligence estimates of threats in Libya. Also struck, the Interim Report says, were "any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region."  These changes were made, the chairmen conclude, not to protect classified information -- reviews of the draft were circulated on unsecure email systems -- and not to protect the investigation by the FBI. "This process to alter the talking points," concludes the Interim Report, "can only be construed as a deliberate effort to mislead the American people."    

The resulting talking points were delivered to Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for her five Sunday talk show appearances on Sept. 16, in which she denounced the "hateful video."    

Who might have ordered this "deliberate effort"? The Interim Report mentions Barack Obama only twice as recipient of letters of inquiry, but this comment seems aimed clearly at him and his first secretary of state. We know that Obama was informed of the attack while it was occurring, that he ordered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to respond to it (as he was already doing) and did not confer later with officials that evening. The next morning he jetted off to Las Vegas for a campaign event. Benghazi threatened to undermine a central element of Obama's appeal, that his presidency would reduce the threat of Islamist terrorism. He managed to obfuscate that during the rest of the campaign. But maybe not forever.    

~~~~~~

Rep. McCaul: Boston Bombing Suspects Likely Had Training

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says he believes the Boston Marathon bombing suspects had some training in carrying out their attack. Rep. Michael McCaul is citing the type of device used in the attack — shrapnel-packed pressure-cooker bombs — and the weapons' sophistication as signs of training. Homemade bombs built from pressure cookers have been a frequent weapon of militants in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Al-Qaida's branch in Yemen once published an online manual on how to make one. McCaul also tells "Fox News Sunday" that he thinks the suspects' mother played "a very strong role" in her sons' radicalization process and that if she were to return to the United States from Russia, she'd be held for questioning.  Wow! And the media is telling us to relax, these were just two young men that "became" self radicalized. There is no larger concern.

~~~~~~

Krauthammer on 'Red Line': 'What’s At Stake Here Is Whether Anything This President Now Says Is Believable' By Noel Sheppard

With the revelation that Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has used chemical weapons on his people, folks on both sides of the aisle are wondering if Barack Obama will keep his word that this is the red line that if crossed would require American action.  On Fox News's Special Report, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said Thursday, "What’s at stake here is whether anything that this president now says is believable around the world." CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:

Well, I think what’s really important here is that what’s at stake is not the trajectory of the Syrian war. There’s something else at stake here and that’s America’s word. Whatever Obama does, I don’t think he’ll do anything. He’ll try to minimize this. He’ll try to caveat himself out of this. But even if he does act, it’ll be a minor act. It’s not going to have any effect on what happens in Syria. What’s at stake here is whether anything that this president now says is believable around the world. When you say "red line," and you make the red line way out there – it’s not the slaughter of 80,000 of your own people. It’s the use of chemical weapons - and then you get definitive evidence that it has been used, and you don’t do anything, then your word means nothing. And the one thing America’s had for the last 60 years is the power and the belief in the world that when it says X, it will do X. And I think that’s really the problem is here. I’m wondering whether this Administration understands how much of its word is at stake.

~~~~~~

"The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers. ... The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 70, 1788

† † † † † † † † † † †