October 16, 2013

The Brave John Boehner Who Chickened Out

Timothy Birdnow

In Monty Python and the Holy Grail a minstrel sings the praises of Sir Robin the Brave. He reminds me of John Boehner, who, in the battel to defund Obamacare, stood like a stone wall until now, when it appears he is bravely running away.

Here is the song we conservative minstrels are singing:

Minstrel: [singing] Bravely bold John Boehner rode forth to blow his spout. He was not afraid to die, oh brave John Boehner. He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways, brave, brave, brave, brave John Boehner. He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp, or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken. To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away, and his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave John Boehner. His head smashed in and heart cut out, and his liver removed, and his bowels unplugged, and his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off and his penis...
Speaker Boehner: That's, uh, that's enough music for now, lads... looks like there's dirty work afoot.

Minstrel: [singing] Speaker Boehner ran away...
Speaker Boehner: *No!*
Minstrel: [singing] bravely ran away away...
Speaker Boehner: *I didn't!*
Minstrel: [singing] When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Speaker Boehner: *I never did!*
Minstrel: [singing] Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Speaker Boehner: *Oh, you liars!*
Minstrel: [singing] Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave John Boehner.

Minstrel: [singing] He is packing it in and packing it up And sneaking away and buggering off And chickening out and pissing off home, Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Coup Devil

Dana Mathewson sends proof the Apocalypse is nigh.


Page 1 of 3

The 2014 Cadillac ELR—combining a powertrain similar to that of a Chevy Volt

Any questions?


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Persecutions of Military Chaplains

A.J. Cameron

If you remember when the dictate was revealed after the Catholic Church was used to ram ObamaCare through, Glenn Beck said 'we're all Catholics now'.

If the thugs are this vindictive now, how much more vindictive will they be, if they get what they want. We need to pray that the Holy Spirit guides those leaders in the House & the Senate to out maneuver the thugs, so as to make this shutdown our generation's Trenton, a turning point against the assaults being waged upon us by people within our government.

Obama Defense Department Bars 50 Catholic Priests From Conducting Mass, Locks Up Eucharist…

DOD Still Barring 50 Priests from Administering Sacraments, Locks Up Eucharist, Priest Sues
October 15, 2013 by Terry Jeffery

(CNSNews.com) -- After the Obama administration, for the second Sunday in a row, continued to prohibit approximately 50 Catholic priests from saying Mass and administering other sacraments at U.S. military facilities around the world, Father Ray Leonard, who serves as the Catholic chaplain at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia, filed suit Monday against the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the Department of the Navy, and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.
DOD is prohibiting Father Leonard and the other Catholic priests from administering the sacraments and providing other services to their congregations even though two weeks ago Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law that instructed DOD to maintain on the job and keep paying contract employees who were supporting the troops.

DOD took this action because Hagel determined--after consulting with Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department--that civilian Catholic priests, working under contract as chaplains, did not, among other things, "contribute to the morale” and "well-being” of service personnel.

"The Department of Defense consulted closely with the Department of Justice, which expressed its view that the law does not permit a blanket recall of all civilians," Hagel said in an Oct. 5 memorandum. "Under our current reading of the law, the standard of 'support to members of the Armed Forces' requires a focus on those employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale, well-being, capabilities, and readiness of covered military members during the lapse of appropriations."

Among the specific examples Hagel provided of civilian contractors whom he believed met this standard were those working in secular "Family Support Programs and Activities," "Behavorial Health and Suicide Prevention Programs" and "Health Care Activities and Providers"--but not priests.
"As the Catholic Pastor for the base, Father Leonard celebrates daily and weekend Mass, hears confession, and administers the Sacraments, which take place on the base,” says the lawsuit.
"Father Leonard wishes to continue practicing his faith and ministering to his faith community free of charge on the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay during the government shut-down, but has been told that he is subject to arrest if he does so,” says the suit.
There are about 300 Catholic families on the base that Father Leonard serves. "Father Leonard is not permitted to perform Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) classes, meetings, and preparations on the Naval Base," says the lawsuit. "Therefore, all preparation of Catholic Sacraments, such as confirmation and marriage are cancelled."
Father Leonard, who spent a decade serving the Tibetan population in China, likened the administration’s behavior to that of the regime in the People’s Republic.
"In China, I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in China,” Father Leonard said in a statement. "I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do, and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community.”
Father Leonard is far from being alone among Catholic priests that the administration is subjecting to this treatment.
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, led by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, explained to CNSNews.com on Tuesday that there are about 900 Catholic priests serving Catholics in the military and their families at bases worldwide. These include priests who are serving on active-duty in the military, priests who are general schedule civilian government employees, and priests who are not government employees but who are on contract to the military to provide chaplain services to military personnel.
On Sunday, Oct. 6, the DOD prevented some general schedule priests as well as contract priests from administering the sacraments at military bases. This included, for example, both Father Leonard and Father Larry Smith, S.J. of Georgetown University, who serves at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, D.C. Father Smith, who is a general schedule federal employee, was allowed to return to his chaplain duties by Sunday, Oct. 13.
However, according to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, Father Leonard and about 50 other Catholic priests serving on contract at military facilities have not been allowed to return to serving military personnel.
As Father Leonard's lawsuit states, such priests were not allowed to administer sacraments even on a volunteer basis.
Defense Secretary Hagel, according to Father Leonard's lawsuit, decided to continue to block contract priests from serving their congregations because he decided that the work these priests performed did not, among other things, "contribute to the morale” and "well-being” of service members.
At the end of September, before the government shutdown, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Pay Our Military Act. This law provided that during a shutdown active duty military personnel would be paid, and that civilian Defense Department personnel and contractors would continue to serve and be paid if the secretary determined they are "providing support to members of the Armed Forces.”
On Oct. 5, Defense Secretary Hagel issued a memorandum stating that he would consider personnel to be "providing support to members of the Armed Forces” under the terms of this law if they were among "those employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale, well-being, capabilities, and readiness of covered military members during the lapse of appropriations.”
Hagel decided that the Catholic priests on contract to serve Catholic military personnel did not meet this standard--and that determination left contract Catholic priests under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which bars them from even volunteering to administer the sacraments to Catholic military personnel.
At Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, the DOD went so far as to lock up the chapel and sequester the Holy Eucharist inside it. Catholics believe the Holy Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

"The doors to the Kings Bay Chapel were locked on October 4, 2013, with the Holy Eucharist, Holy water, Catholic hymn books, and vessels all locked inside,” said Father Leonard’s lawsuit. "Father Leonard and his parishioners, including Fred Naylor, were prohibited from entering.”
Fred Naylor is a Navy veteran, who attends Mass at the chapel, and who joined in the lawsuit.
Father Leonard’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, explains that the chapel at Kings Bay is especially important to the sailors there because of the remoteness of the base and the lack of ready ground transportation to the closest Catholic church off base.
"The submarine base is remotely located,” says the suit. "The closest Catholic Church is off base in the town of St. Mary’s. This is roughly eight miles away from the Naval Base."
"Many of Father Leonard’s parishioners live and work on the Naval Base and do not own a car or have access to other transportation,” it says. "This makes a sixteen mile journey to and from church impossible for many of Fr. Leonard’s parishioners, particularly sailors who are not given enough break time to walk sixteen miles and attend the Mass service.
"Catholics are required by the dictates of their faith to attend Mass and to receive Communion on the Sabbath each week,” says the suit.
Father Leonard’s lawsuit alleges the government is infringing on the First Amendment-protected rights of the free exercise of religion and the freedom of assembly.###

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1332 words, total size 9 kb.

Julia Then and Now

Timothy Birdnow

And now for the rest of the story.

Anyone remember the Life of Julia? Julia was the young girl who benefitted so greatly from all manner of government assistance. Her life was inextricably tied to what was provided to her by Barack Obama and our government.


How is she faring now that we have a partial government shutdown?


Maybe Julia shouldn't have given over so much control of her life to the State?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

October 15, 2013

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Dana Mathewson

I just found this interesting article linked on Lucianne.com. We have been reading beaucoup articles about the disasters encountered by folks attempting to sign up for ObamaCare on the websites provided for the purpose, and it's caused Jack Kemp and myself to reminisce about the days of yore when he and I were programming computers for a living.

Here's a bit of a horror story from The Weekly Standard that ought to raise your temperature a bit:

The launch of federal government's Obamacare insurance exchange, Healthcare.gov, has been plagued with delays, errors, and poor website design, even prompting USA Today to call it an"inexcusable mess" and a "nightmare". Now comes another example of why the website's reputation is in tatters. Buried in the source code of Healthcare.gov is this sentence that could prove embarrassing: "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system." Though not visible to users and obviously not intended as part of the terms and conditions, the language is nevertheless a part of the underlying code for the "Terms & Conditions" page on the site.

After creating an account on Healthcare.gov, users are asked to click an "I accept" button under some routine Terms & Conditions prohibiting unauthorized attempts to upload information or change the website. Once users click the button, they may proceed to shop for insurance and enter detailed personal information. However, when the Terms & Conditions page is visible, the hidden sentence mentioned above along with several others can be seen by using a web browser's "View Source" feature.

At this point, the article shows a "screen grab," which will not reproduce properly here. The entire article, which is not long, can be found here:

Be forewarned, friends!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 3 kb.

"Going to Chicago" and the Obamacare's website

Jack Kemp

There is a blues classic called "Going to Chicago." It recalls a real life situation that is another good analogy to compare to the Obamacare website design. And the following government payment system more or less worked.

Last year I traveled to Chicago's O'Hare airport and rented a car. At the end of my trip, I drove back to O'Hare and came off of a toll road to an airport entrance that required me to come up with - as best I recall - somewhere around $1.50 or more in quarters to throw in the hopper at an automated toll both with no attendant to make change. The sign said I'd pay a fine of a lot more for running the toll gate without paying and there was a camera there that took a photo of my rental car's license plate. I was early and just stood there not knowing what to do, waving a car or two around me, people who had a local EZPass electronic payment card. Finally, I realized I had to go into the airport immediately to return the rental car and catch my plane. It was like the Star Trek Kobayashi Maru test where there was no way to solve the problem.

When I returned the car, I asked a staff person for help and they gave me a website address where I could pay the toll (it was not listed on the signage at the automated toll booth). When I got home to NY, I went online and payed Mayor Emanuel and the City of Chicago more than if I had had the quarters handy to throw into the toll booth hopper. It wasn't that much more money than the listed fee and I believe this system works this way because a number of first time out-of-town tourists drive rental cars back to the airport and, like myself, wind up paying more because they didn't have a load of quarters on them.

This is a real world example of a payment system designed "the Chicago Way." Some tourists, of course, have iPhones or Droid phones and could have paid online AT THE TOLLBOOTH if the website were known to them at that time. Even if the fee was a bit higher, they at least would have the peace of mind knowing that they weren't entering into a petty bureaucratic mess.

Perhaps the City of Chicago has fixed the problem since that time - I don't know. But it was a confusing, frustrating situation on the morning I drove back to O'Hare a year or so ago.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 2 kb.

The Redskins, Liberalism & Public Opinion: The Way We Live Today

Brian E. Birdnow

The current politically correct imbroglio over the Washington Redskins and owner Daniel Snyder’s stout refusal to appease the bloodhounds on his trail by surrendering will probably soon pass, regardless of the eventual outcome. The demands of the modern 24-hour news cycle guarantee that this will not last too long. This mini-controversy does, however, serve to illustrate the nature of the manufacturing of public opinion by the standard bearers of cultural liberalism and their allies in the mass media, circa 2013. Simply put, the Left decides that something is "offensive” and uses its media access to declare this object impermissible, or "out of bounds” to use a gridiron term. The media then goes to work and, through relentless pressure, convinces huge numbers of people that the media view is the only legitimate vision, thereby silencing opposition.

Consider the current controversy over the Washington Redskins. The political correctness police have been on this so-called issue for a number of years. Those readers with long memories can return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, namely the early 1990s. The Left raised a ruckus in those years over the Kansas City Chiefs, the Florida State Seminoles and the Atlanta Braves, respectively. Most Americans, with the exception of certain craven university administrators, dismissed this tempest as a classic example of self-conscious political correctness, complete with the requisite dollop of preening moral superiority that characterizes these exercises. The matter then rested, albeit uneasily, for roughly twenty years.

Now interested people can sense an indecisive NFL commissioner who is susceptible to pressure, and might cave on the issue. President Obama got into the act last week and suggested that the Redskins should change their nickname because, "…it offends a sizable group of people.” Since the Left now has the official sanction of their leader this becomes a crusade. The mass media will take up the issue, framing it as a morality play with those who insist on the Redskins changing their nickname cast as the heroes, and the die-hards who cling to tradition characterized as the villains. The media echo chamber will attempt to quell dissenters by hurling invective and abuse in their direction, thereby intimidating most people into silence. The Left will deal with the last holdouts by isolating them and letting them no that they are no longer invited to the party.

This treatment falls short of the totalitarian notion of the Big Lie, being the idea that a falsehood repeated often enough takes on truth in the minds of those who are forced to listen. It is more of a modern variation of the idea popularized by Saul Alinsky, that the best way to discredit one’s enemies is to subject them to constant mockery and ridicule, and to plant the idea in the minds of the larger public that the targeted group is truly beyond the bounds of permissible discourse. This tactic has worked well, when adopted by the Left and the media in the recent past. Since the 1970s we have seen major societal shifts in civic attitudes toward public smoking, the consumption of liquor, eating meat, and wearing fur. Those are largely matters of individual preference but we have seen media directed campaigns considering obscenity standards on television, and most consequentially on gays in the military and, now, gay marriage. The Left and their media allies have been able to draw the lines of argument and permissible dissent in these public brawls and that is why they have triumphed, usually in the face of significant initial opposition.

The Left had grown very sure of their control of mass media until about 1995. Now, however, the Left has lost some of their former ability to slam their opponents with the development of 1990s phenomena like talk radio, the internet and Fox News and more recently through the employment of social media like weblogs, Facebook and Twitter. Conservative websites like this one have broken the liberal "news” monopoly, and provide a resistance point for those unwilling to accept the liberal formulation on most important sociocultural issues. The fact that these new media outlets have become quite important can be measured in the rage that the Left directs at them, especially Fox News. If an opponent is really no more than a mere annoyance one would waste no time with criticizing them, but the liberals unrestrained fury at Fox News shows that they have struck many nerves.

No one yet knows how the Redskins battle will play itself out. Dan Snyder seems resolute in his stand, but his fellow owners could bring a lot of pressure to bear. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner, could conceivably order Snyder to change the team name. The National Football League has proven itself controversy-averse in the past (the league essentially vetoed the prospect of Rush Limbaugh as a part owner of the St. Louis Rams during the last decade) and might well decide to avoid difficulties by "encouraging” Snyder to change the nickname or sell the team. What the casual observer can see here is, once again, the ability of the Left and their media allies to create a crisis where none exists, and to relentlessly push their agenda by any means at their disposal. The world, of course, has greater problems than the nickname of an American football team, but the cultural implications of this type of bullying and censorship are very troubling, indeed

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 6 kb.

Dave Ramsey dispassionately looks at Obamacare Math

Jack Kemp

Dave Ramsey dispassionately looks at Obamacare Math
Jack Kemp

A reader at Tea Party Nation brought a nine minute Dave Ramsey show video to my attention about Obamacare. It can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVqOe07cdY#t=20

My previous analogy with the wine vat emphasized other aspects of the problem, such as young people who would pay a fine rather than the whole Obamacare premium in the first year or so, leaving the tank figuratively empty. The Dave Ramsey example emphasizes some things that have to happen (if I use a modification of my example) to supply wine if the congregation drank after religious services every week - and they used a clear glass tank (or vat) to have constant record of their situation. Even with an ongoing daily measurement of the wine vat, there are still - as Dave Ramsey points out - more self-delusions in this centralized distribution plan that emphasizes feel good intentions over responsible ongoing management. Dave points out that the management would have to use heavy handed tactics to make up the shortfall in this hopelessly utopian scheme. He applies math to the delusions of the deluded. It is also like the thinking expressed in a button they used to sell years ago: "I can't be broke. I still have checks in my checkbook."

Specifically, an article quotes Dave Ramsey and says, in part:


A few days ago, Mr. Ramsey decided to share his wisdom with people of all political affiliations on how the Obamacare legislation would affect every American, no matter their political beliefs.

"You’re not exempt from math if you’re a Republican, and you’re not exempt from math if you’re a Democrat. You’re not exempt from math if you’re a liberal, and you’re not exempt from math if you’re a conservative. You still have to do math."

"Pull your head far enough out of your politics to have an original thought.”

"January 1st, 2014 every insurance company is required to take on anyone, no matter how sick they are, and they cannot charge them more than someone who is not ill…You're 500 lbs. you have diabetes, you’ve got cancer, you’ve had three heart attacks you’re going to pay the exact same premium as a perfectly healthy person.”

"I understand the motivation, and the nobility and the moral imperative behind that. I get that. But that doesn’t change the math, the math is that those people get sick more often and run up more medical bills than someone who is healthy. Duh.”

"If they now have to be covered by the same company that you’re covered by and they’re required to take them… then the math kicks in. Because the amount of money that that company was paying out to the medical community is going to go way up. They’re going to pay out to the medical community per person than they ever have before… what they pay out per person is how your premium is determined – plus profit.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

Where's the concern over private sector furloughs?

Paul Driessen

As the impasse continues over Obamacare, the debt ceiling, federal furloughs, White House efforts to make the government shutdown as painful as possible, and how Congress and the bureaucracy are spending our tax dollars – it is apparent that too much attention has been paid to the plight of temporarily unpaid federal workforce.

Meanwhile, far too little attention is being paid to the millions of private sector workers who have been "furloughed” – for weeks, months, years or permanently – by the Congress, White House and federal bureaucracy. Not only are these workers unlikely ever to recoup their lost paychecks, or get paid retroactively in some grand compromise. Their lives, living standards, health, welfare and life spans are being impacted in ways that few have discussed – and certainly no politicians or bureaucrats ever contemplate when they impose endless thousands of pages of new laws and regulations. It is time to address that oversight and examine the human costs of intrusive government micro-management.


Where’s the concern over private sector furloughs?

Private sector workers impacted by the federal behemoth may never recover. Does DC care?

Paul Driessen

In 2009, President Obama told Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), "Elections have consequences, and I won.” As with his healthcare law, amid this year’s impasse, he said "there will be no negotiations on the debt ceiling” and "I shouldn’t have to offer anything” in dealing with Republicans. To ensure that Americans got the message, the National Park Service was told "to make life as difficult for people as we can,” one frustrated ranger informed reporters.

As the White House, Democrats and Republicans remain at an impasse over debt limits, the budget and the growing disaster that is Obamacare, the situation has become surreal.

Some 800,000 federal workers were furloughed without pay, and the economic ripples caused many local businesses to lose revenues. The pain is palpable. But for government workers it is only temporary.

The House voted to restore the government employees’ paychecks once the brinkmanship is over; the Senate will almost certainly follow. That’s how previous shutdowns were handled. Moreover, the Defense Department has already brought back most of its 350,000 furloughed civilian workers.

However, those local private sector workers will never recoup their lost income – and that’s only the leading edge of the economic tsunami, and the way the President runs his Executive Branch.

Death benefits were withheld from grieving families of heroes killed in Afghanistan. The Park Service permitted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to lead an immigration rally on the National Mall, but closed the World War II Memorial to aging veterans who had arrived on Honor Flights. The vets breeched the "Barackades,” and the "Spite House” backed off – but only for veterans, and not elsewhere.

The Service padlocked parks and monuments all over America, disrupting long-planned, fully paid vacations. It blocked roads and parking lots to privately owned and operated sites like Mount Vernon and Claude Moore Colonial Farm Park in Virginia, ensuring that major events during one of their busiest months would be cancelled and much of their revenue would be lost forever. It closed highway overlooks at Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore. The feds even closed hunting areas and booted people out of their homes at Lake Meade and on other federal lands. This had not been done during prior shutdowns.

Amidst it all, Mr. Obama insisted that he opposes "extortion” and "hostage taking.”

Elsewhere, federal lawmakers and bureaucrats have been busy for years. Thousand-page Dodd-Frank, unaffordable healthcare and other laws that no one read before enacting them were followed by 10,000-page regulatory decrees to interpret and impose the legislation. The IRS targeted political "enemies” and their financial supporters, and gave leftwing groups the names of donors to conservative organizations.

The Interior and Energy Departments and Environmental Protection Agency are spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually mandating and subsidizing wind, solar and biofuel programs – and exempting them from endangered species laws. Meanwhile, they wage war on coal, oil and gas, mining, logging, fossil fuel-based manufacturing, even ranching and farming, and the communities that depend on those industries for livelihoods and living standards.

EPA alone issued over 1,900 new regulations since January 2009 – many of them based on questionable science, cherry-picked studies, unsupported assertions and even illegal experiments on humans. Ignoring clear congressional intent and federalism principles, it usurped state air and water programs and is promulgating draconian carbon dioxide rules that will impact everything we make, ship, eat and do.

It also engaged in 48 cleverly devised "sue and settle” arrangements. Environmentalist groups sued EPA, which then conducted closed-door negotiations that sympathetic judges approved. States, companies and other parties adversely affected by the decisions never had an opportunity to be heard, or even find out a lawsuit had been filed until it was over. None of these autocrats will ever be held accountable.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates that government regulations, delays and red tape cost American businesses and families over $1.8 trillion annually. That’s half the 2012 U.S. budget, and 10% of our gross domestic product. The impacts on employment are enormous.

Official unemployment rates have fallen slightly -- mostly because millions have dropped out of the workforce, and millions of full-time jobs have been converted into more millions of 29-hour-per-week positions. Over fourteen million working age Americans are unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, for less pay than with their old jobs, or have given up looking. The percentage of unemployed blacks is double that for whites.

Incomes have fallen, poverty and homelessness have risen, the Bureau of Economic Research reports, and inflation-adjusted median household incomes are down 4.4% in four years: $2,200 out of $50,000 annually. Millions of families rely on welfare, unemployment and disability payments for a least part of their incomes. Our national debt has soared six trillion dollars in four years. Our 2.5% annual economic growth is tepid, at best.

All of this means steadily declining quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. Factor in taxes and inflation, says the AP, and it’s the largest decline in real personal disposable incomes in fifty years. And that’s just the beginning. The total, cumulative impacts are monumental.

Anemic growth, fewer full-time jobs and declining economic status also mean millions of families cannot heat and cool their homes properly; pay rent, mortgage or other bills; take vacations or save for college and retirement. Not being able to work takes a huge physical and psychological toll, as well.

As Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan points out, work gives us purpose, stability, shared mission, pride and stature. Work is a way to serve one’s family and community, and be integrated into the daily life of our nation. Being unable to find or keep a job erodes self-confidence and self-worth. The impacts of joblessness on people’s health, welfare and psychological well-being can be devastating.

The stress of being unemployed – or holding several low-paying part-time jobs – means poor nutrition, sleep deprivation, more miles of stressful, expensive commuting, and higher incidences of depression, and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse.

It means lower life expectancies and higher suicide rates. It means every life allegedly saved because of countless new laws and regulations is offset by lives lost or shortened because of those same rules. Even worse, many of those costly regulations are based on ideology, meaningless computer model "scenarios,” or science that is sloppy or even fraudulent. That means they actually bring few or no health or environmental benefits – but do impose enormous human costs.

Thus far, Washington is doing nothing about these "furloughs,” lost incomes and lost lives.

It is ignoring the most fundamental principle of legislation and regulation: First, do no harm.

No wonder few Americans sympathize much with the furloughed federales – and many question why we need two million federal bureaucrats and congressional staffers, cranking out more job-killing laws and regulations that do little to improve health, welfare or environmental quality, and much to diminish it.

Democrats, Republicans and the President need to negotiate like adults, fix Obamacare, trim the budget, rein in the regulatory behemoth – and restore our nation’s ability to do what it once did so well: innovate, create jobs, attribute dignity and responsibility to work, and make the pursuit of happiness available to all.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1415 words, total size 10 kb.

“Racist” L.A. Police Dogs Think Whites Taste Bad

By Selwyn Duke

Will the slights and salt-in-wound exacerbations ever end? It’s not enough that white people are cast as the source of all the world’s woes as people find that we, increasingly, leave a bad taste in their mouths. Now we hear that even man’s best friend doesn’t find us very palatable. Writes The Independent in a piece  HYPERLINK "http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/racist-la-police-dogs-only-bite-latinos-and-africanamericans-8874913.html" titled "'Racist' LA police dogs only bite Latinos and African-Americans”:

Police officers in Los Angeles have long faced accusations of institutional racism, but now it appears their dogs may be unjustly discriminatory, too.

A new report focusing on the Canine Special Detail of the LA Sherriff’s Department (LASD) has uncovered a vast increase in the number of minority individuals bitten by police dogs since 2004.
And in the first six months of this year, every single victim of a bite by a LASD dog was African-American or Latino.

…the number of Latino individuals bitten by LASD canines went up 30 per cent between 2004 and 2012, from 30 to 39 bites. The number of African-Americans bitten increased by 33 per cent over the same period.

Of course, some people will point out that L.A. is already "majority-minority” and that its percentage of non-Hispanic whites continues to decline steadily. They will say that even in New York City — which has a larger white population than L.A. — blacks and Hispanics  HYPERLINK "http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/19/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism/" commit 96 percent of all crime. So who would we expect police dogs to bite in a big city? "I mean,” these apologists will say, "K-9s generally don’t bite random people on the street.”

But I say save it. Don’t spit down my back and tell me it’s rainin’. This clearly is culinary bias that, given dogs’ perceived reputation for being good judges of people, serves to further demonize whites.

And the experts are on my side in recognizing the dangers of racial gastronomic distress. As The Telegraph  HYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist-say-report.html" wrote in 2008:
The National Children's Bureau [in Britain]…has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.
This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

Also consider that the National Children’s (Polit?)Bureau warned that another sign of bias can be indicated by a child saying "they smell.

”Now note that dogs find that we smell.

In fact, I can’t tell you how many times a canine has gone sniffing about my person.
Without ever taking a bite!

What gives? I mean, I wash — with soap. What do these beasts of bias find so off-putting?
But now I will take to heart the U.K. bureau’s advice that "[n]o racist incident should be ignored….” and propose some remedies:

Police dogs must receive sensitivity training and be warned about gratuitous and racially disparate sniffing.

The word "odor” must not be used. The dogs should be understood to practice "aroma detection.” Moreover, olfactory activity should not be pursued in an obvious and offensive manner. Excessive nose twitches are to be avoided.

Quotas for canine bites must be instituted. Whites must be afforded bite events in accordance with their percentage of the population. Consider that even in a place such as L.A. there is no shortage of white people in the street who could receive a self-esteem-buttressing tasting.
Having said all this, what pains me most is that I’ve been part of the problem. Why, when I eat chicken or turkey, I’m definitely not partial to the white meat.

So maybe there’s a deeper truth here. Even so, do the media really have to rub our Caucasian noses in it?

HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net"Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke"follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://selwynduke.com"SelwynDuke.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 641 words, total size 5 kb.

Who Needs 'Em!

Timothy Birdnow

Mike directs our attention to this story about a billionaire couple who have personally funded Head Start for underprivileged youths.


From the article:

"A billionaire couple have forked out $10 million of their own cash to pay for care for some of the poorest children in society amid the continuing US Government shutdown.

Laura and John Arnold have dipped into their personal fortune of $2.8 billion to reopen seven Head Start programmes in six states."

End excerpt.

This is how it USED to be done; private charities supplied the funding for programs to help the poor and unfortunate. And they did a much better job, having limits on their financial reserves. Government funding creates a behemoth that usually fails in its mission. And in the process it destroys the private charities and can-do spirit that is needed for a program like Head Start, which should be teaching children the value of work and self-reliance but which, in the end, teaches dependency.

There is very little government can do that cannot be done better by private groups. National Defense is the primary government function, since we do not want private armies wandering about. Beyond that, and resolving disputes between interstate parties, there isn't a whole lot that governments can do better than the private sector. Oh, governments have more money, taken through force from the citizenry to fund what someone thinks is a good idea, but money alone does not equate with quality.

The old system worked - and very well. Are there less homeless now than before the welfare state arose? Are children better educated? Is healthcare superior (if one ignores technological advances)?

Can anyone seriously argue that Amtrac is better than the old for-profit railroads? Obviously not. Governments simply waste money and add layers and layers of bureacracy that make things less efficient. Yet strangely people keep turning to government as the solution when it is part of the problem. Obamacare, for instance, went in the exact wrong direction; healthcare should have been reformed through privatization, not increasing government involvement. It was government involvement that destroyed it in the first place.

Anyone remember the HMO? Ted Kennedy wrote the legislation for that, and then blamed the Republicans when it proved to be the boondoggle it became. The HMO took a problem and metastasized it. Medicare started the inflation of healthcare costs, driving prices sky-high in the interest of providing "quality care" for the elderly. Had government not gotten involved in the first place reform would have been unnecessary.

And this shutdown illustrates that government is largely unnecessary. People are coping. Private individuals and charities are stepping up as in the past, doing what they can do better than government. If anything shows the largely useless nature of the leviathan in Washington it is this shutdown. That alone was worth the price.

We have had a couple of generations of Americans who have been taught to believe that they cannot survive without government to care for them. Like children learning to ride a bicycle they have come to rely on the training wheels to protect them from falling. But eventually a child must remove those wheels and ride on his own, and usually when he does he finds he really did not need them. Cruz, Lee, and the rest of the Tea Party caucus in the Senate have taken the training wheels off America, and the public is now seeing that those wheels were never needed.

How many careers depend on those wheels? The government machine will not go down without a fight. But go down they should, because they have fed parasite fashion for years off the body politic. We can no longer afford them.

So this is a good thing; we are showing that we do not need our masters in Washington to care for us. We can do it at the state and local levels - or better yet at the private level.

Let's hope this lesson is not lost on the public.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 4 kb.

The Federal Takeover of Catholic Education

A.J. Cameron forwards this from Crisis Magazine:

October 14, 2013

The Federal Takeover of Catholic Education

By Anne Hendershott

As teachers throughout the country introduced the new Common Core curriculum—the federal standards for mathematics and English Language Arts—in their classrooms this fall, most parents had no idea this radical change in their children’s education was coming. Some might have noticed over the past month that there were dramatic changes in the textbooks and tests that their children were bringing home. Others may have noticed that in language arts, their children are now being introduced to some very different kinds of books—texts with more emphasis on technical or informational material, and less emphasis on classical literature. It would be difficult not to notice, as the Common Core curriculum is a dramatic change in the ways in which education is being delivered. Yet, few parents, and even fewer elected political representatives, knew this was coming.

A recent poll by Phi Delta Kappa International and Gallup revealed that 62 percent of the population has never heard about the Common Core curriculum. Now that they are finally finding out about what can only be called a federal takeover of public education, it may be too late. The curriculum has been created, the books have been purchased, and the standards have been implemented. Assessment testing has already begun. Many are asking how something like this could happen without parental and local input. Others are wondering how education could have become federalized when there are already laws in place to prevent just such federal intervention?

The answer is that it was a stealthy appropriation by the federal government to take control of the curriculum in the local public schools—and now, in some private schools also. The federal takeover involved no parental input, and very little involvement by elected representatives. It had to be done covertly because there are indeed laws protecting states against unwanted federal intrusion into the educational curriculum of local school districts. The General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act all protect states against intrusion by the United States Department of Education. The problem is that the "intrusion” has not been entirely "unwanted” by state political leaders—especially the governors of each state. Enlisting the state governors as allies in the creation of the curriculum through the National Governor’s Association, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation used the lure of more than $150 million in grant money—and the promise of future federal funds—to convince the leaders of budget-strapped states to support the federal standards.

Working collaboratively with the Obama administration, the Gates Foundation helped to subsidize the creation of a national curriculum that has now been adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia. Endowing the creation of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed an additional $76 million to support teachers in implementing the Common Core—a standardized national curriculum. This, on top of the more than 100 million they have already awarded to the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the Common Core in the first place.

Although the Common Core was designed to address problems in the public schools, many Catholic schools have decided to adopt the Common Core standards also. Eager to share in the largesse of the Gates Foundation, and the promise of future federal funds, Catholic school superintendents from more than 100 Catholic dioceses across the nation have embraced the federal education standards. According to the National Catholic Register, the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA), while not formally endorsing the Common Core, has been holding workshops on how to implement the standards in Catholic schools.

Many parents of these Catholic school children are unhappy with the implementation of federal guidelines in their Catholic schools. Catholic parents groups are emerging throughout the country to try and fight against the continued implementation of the Common Core. New Jersey parents have banded together to address the problems they see with the common core, and Pittsburgh Catholics Against the Common Core have organized to protest the implementation of the federal standards in their children’s Catholic schools. The National Catholic Register published comments from Ann Hynds, one of the members of the Pittsburgh parents’ group, who declared that "Catholic parents are so angry … we are the primary educators of our children, and we are being told not to worry, that they know better.”

These angry sentiments are echoed by many other concerned parents. Most have said that they believe the Common Core will be detrimental to Catholic education—as Hynds said "Catholic educators all say how excellent Catholic education has always been… So why are they doing this?”

That is a good question. While it is understandable that the governors were empowered to make the decision in collaboration with their school superintendents, it is less clear how Catholic school superintendents were empowered to make the decision about Common Core unilaterally. Many parents are asking whether their bishops were involved in the decision to implement the federal curriculum.

Still, there are many dioceses that have refused to implement the Common Core. Richard Thompson, superintendent of Catholic schools for the Denver Archdiocese has refused to allow the Common Core in the Catholic schools there. In a published interview in the National Catholic Register, Thompson said that he saw no need to install the federal standards in the Catholic schools in Denver because the schools are already "exceeding most of Common Core standards. We’re already there and more.”

Indeed, this is a major concern for Catholic school parents. One of the reasons that many of these parents sent their children to Catholic schools was because of the academic rigor that was missing in the public schools. In a critical op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal by Jamie Gass and Charles Chieppo, we learn that Stanford University emeritus mathematics professor James Milgram, the only academic mathematician on the Common Core’s validation committee, refused to sign onto the final draft. Milgram described the Common Core standards as having "extremely serious failings” and reflecting "very low expectations.” Reflecting these concerns, Phyllis Schlafly, President of the Eagle Forum wrote a letter to the Catholic bishops warning them that in the Common Core, "conceptual math has replaced fundamentals,” and "Euclidian geometry was displaced.” She also asserted that in language arts, students are forced to read texts "in a vacuum” without contextual information, and lamented the reductions in classical literature that accompanied the Common Core.

Parents are worried. So concerned about the negative response to the Common Core from parents of Catholic school children that Father Peter Stravinskas, executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation, has scheduled a conference titled "Catholic Concerns About the Common Core” in Elberon, New Jersey next month (at the Stella Maris Retreat Center on November 5-6). The National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools will co-host the event with the schools office of the Diocese of Gaylord, Michigan, and the superintendent of high schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Father Stravinskas has warned that since the SATs and other standardized tests will be geared to the Common Core, Catholic schools need to pay attention to the federalized standards.

Education policy expert, Diane Ravitch appears to agree with Father Stravinskas about the standardized testing issues. Ravitch pointed out that since David Coleman, the primary architect of the Common Core standards has become president of the College Board, "we can expect that SAT will be aligned to the standards. No one will escape their reach, whether they attend public or private school.” Even homeschooled children will be vulnerable to the federalization of public education standards.

It is possible that some school districts—especially those in economically deprived areas—will benefit from the federal intervention in their local schools. But, it is difficult to see how inviting the federal government into our Catholic schools to help create a new curriculum can make things better.

Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology and Director of the VERITAS Center at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education; The Politics of Abortion; and The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books). She is also the co-author of the forthcoming Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are revitalizing the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1405 words, total size 10 kb.

October 14, 2013

Interplanetary Magnetic Effects and Climate

Timothy Birdnow

I have been arguing for some time that there is a link between magnetic fields and climate. Looks like the professionals are starting to take that claim seriously.




Here is the abstract of a paper by Joanne Nova:

"The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is concentrated in the polar regions. We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves. Our results show that a
mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes. We suggest the mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric processes."

End abstract.

The Earth is connected to the Sun (and the planets) by lines of magnetic force. Those magnetic lines fluctuate largely with what is happening inside the Sun, and they interact with the Earth's magnetic field in ways that are unclear.

There are so many aspects of planetary climate that we do not understand, yet the IPCC makes bold predictions based on just one factor. That is rather like looking at an artist's rendition of a field and saying you can understand the whole world from that one painting.

Figure 1

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 3 kb.

LA Times Editor Admits Spiking Global Warming Letters

Timothy Birdnow

An editor of the L.A. Times admits the paper will not publish letters disputing Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Here's how Paul Thornton justifies his censorship:

"Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy."

End excerpt.


There is no longer a debate about the science, since an international body has so decreed the matter settled. Doesn't this editor know that there is an NIPCC that disagrees with the IPCC? Does he not know of the problems pointed out by people in the very community of scientists working on this issue? Has he never heard of Patrick Michaels, or Roy Spencer, or John Christie, or Tim Ball, or Roger Pielke (father and son)?

If he wants to keep scientific inaccuracies off the page, then perhaps he should offer up contrary opinions that use the actual science being done.

Where, pray tell, is the missing heat? Where is the Tropospheric hot spot? Why hasn't sea level rise increased dramatically? Why is Antarctic ice growing?

Actually, Thornton is probably a liar (as I am unwilling to assume he is ignorant of the battle in climatology). If he wanted to keep error off the letters page then he would not publish anything that blames heat waves or inclement weather on Global Warming, yet somehow I suspect he has done precisely that.

He needn't publish articles claiming AGW is a George Soros conspiracy, but I suspect Anthony Watts or Steve McKintyre would be eager to send him letters that dispute the science. His hypocrisy is galling.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Slime and Punishment

Jack Kemp

"If my daughters made a mistake I wouldn't want them punished with a baby" according to Barack Obama.

Well Mr. Obama...

You're parents made a mistake and punished all of US with a baby!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:06 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Red Cross to Distribute Food in Britain this Winter

Timothy Birdnow

The Red Cross will distribute food this winter in Britain - the first time since the end of the Second World War. Why? Green energy policy has driven the cost of heating to record highs, and the public simply cannot afford to both eat and stay warm.

Welcome to the world of energy poverty, the same world Mr. Obama wants to build here in the United States.

Is that why the Administration is buying up emergency food and ammunition?

"Sustainability" is code for scarcity. It means no growth. The notion of "living within our means" may sound good to some, but in economics you either grow or you recede; there is no balance that can be achieved, no magical kingdom where we produce all that we need and not a thing more. It doesn't work that way, because there is always something to eat into the reserves. What happens if there is a major crop failure in, say, Iowa? Without reserves you see prices rise, and poor people starve. Growth means putting some grain away for a rainy day, or planting in other places so you can still harvest. Sustainability means not doing these things.

Liberals never understand that Nature is not our friend. They see Nature as a whole-hearted blessing, and in fact most of them worship the natural as God. The Judeo-Christian worldview has always understood that, while Nature isn't evil, it is fallen (as Man is fallen) and so takes no care for us. It is corrupted. Living "naturally" means living selfishly, living aggressively, living impoverished. Nature holds no kindness for Man; it is the opposite of loving, for it is indifferent to our fate. Man built civilization precisely because "sustainability" did not work. Nature had no gifts for us when times were hard. People would attack those who had the wisdom to save some food, and so the history of Man prior to civilization was one of warfare, bloodshed, and hatred. Civilization allowed us to be kinder, gentler as we had the tools to produce more than we needed and to save for a rainy day - and to help those who had not.

But the Greens and the Left want to return us to the pre-industrial days. They don't really like civilization, because they think it is corrupt at the core, and they long for a pastoral paradise that did not exist. So they try these tricks like Global Warming to stampede people into "sustainability", to live poorer, harder lives.

Well, the fruits are evident in Britain, where we now see food lines forming.

There is an anecdote about Karl Marx's wife (probably apocrophyl) in which she complains to Engels "I wish Karl would spend less time writing about capital and more time acquiring it." Liberals are always fretting about capital because they want to find a way to live without the effort of acquiring it. So they create these Rube Goldberg schemes to remake society where the need to actually work is overcome. But one cannot turn a quarter into a silver dollar. But that doesn't stop these people from trying.

And Green Energy is precisely that. They want to produce energy through inadequate means. See, what they want is an economy where energy is essentially free, where nobody profits from it. They want it to be a birthright. But it is something that has to be made, either generated or acquired through laborious formatting. So they have the schemes about solar cells and windmills, hoping to cut the capitalist out. The result? Red Cross food distribution centers.

But the faith of the liberal is inexhaustible, as they have thrown the God of the Bible into the trash bin. If only the right people get in this time, we can do this! And always, poverty, oppression, and despair are the final fruits.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 650 words, total size 4 kb.

An Obamacare analogy

Jack Kemp

Gene Schwimmer's updated story of his medical insurance situation complications under Obamacare, written at American Thinker,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/more_fun_with_obamacare.html ; has inspired me to add this comment that I want to pass along to the readers here. The URL reference to the Newsweek cover was not in the original comment because of comment posting rules at that website.

There is an old Jewish joke that applies as an instructive story about idealism, human nature - and Obamacare.

A synagogue didn't have enough wine for their annual party. Somehow they got the idea that everyone should bring a glass full of wine to their weekly religious services and pour it into an opening in a big vat. One member of the congregation had a thought after one week of bringing his glass full of wine to the services: "What if I just bring a glass full of water and pour it into the vat each week? Who will know the difference?"

At the end of the year, they opened the vat and it was full of water.

And thus it is with Obamacare. If the average health care purchaser waits until they get sick, there will be nothing inside the vat (or lock box) holding the party wine (or money funding, as the case may be) - a "system" of wishful thinking that will lead to rationing of nearly non-existent funds. To now make a Christian analogy, there is only one person who was able to turn water into wine - and He isn't an employee of the Obama administration, even though Newsweek had a cover story declaring Obama as "The Second Coming," http://christiannews.net/2013/01/21/newsweek-hails-obama-as-messianic-second-coming/ ; I do not believe a real Messiah, be they Jewish or Christian, would bar the gates of the Washington WW II Memorial to veterans who fought great evil.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

October 13, 2013

Government Shutdown Reaches the White House

Dana Mathewson

(1 of 1)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

As Predicted

Jack Kemp


No Recourse for Girls Harassed by Transgender Student
Sunday, October 13, 2013

The push for radical transgender rights in schools is trumping privacy rights at one Colorado high school.

A male student at Florence High School who claims to be a transgender has been harrassing girls in the bathroom. When parents complained, school officials said the boy's rights as a transgender trumped their daughters' privacy rights.

As the controversy grew, some students were threatened with being kicked off athletic teams or charged with hate crimes if they continued to voice concerns.

The Pacific Justice Institute sent the school a letter warning against squelching privacy rights.

"We're not going to stand by and let 99.7 percent of our students lose their privacy and free speech rights just because .3 percent of the population are gender-confused," the PJI wrote.

PJI is demanding assurances from the school that privacy and expressive rights will be protected and any accommodations will not involve the girls giving up access to most of their restrooms, as has previously been suggested by the school.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Toying with a State of Emergency; Executive Coup-de-tat (really sic) Coming?

Timothy Birdnow

In an article below Jack Kemp gives us the head's up on an upgrade to the EBT food stamp system that shut the system down, nearly causing food riots. This dovetails with that story.

It appears FEMA has been buying up emergency food stocks to keep them out of the hands of the public. According to Infowars:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is contacting storable food suppliers requesting immediate delivery of food reserves within a 24 hour period, increasing suspicions that the federal government is accelerating its preparations for social disorder or an environmental calamity.

FEMA recently contacted My Patriot Supply, a provider of bulk food reserves, requesting "immediate delivery” of truckloads of food within a 24 hour period. Instead of soliciting for the food in the normal manner via the Federal Business Opportunities website and thereby saving money, FEMA is now directly contacting suppliers in order to secure overnight deliveries of bulk food. The snapshot above shows one of the emails My Patriot Supply received from FEMA.

While it’s certainly not unusual for FEMA to be buying storable food, the rushed manner with which the federal agency is now conducting such business has raised a few eyebrows, prompting the owner of My Patriot Supply to ask, "Why the sudden sense of urgency? What do they know that we do not?”"

End excerpt.

Couple this with the purchase of billions of rounds of ammunition, of tanks, of all manner of weaponry, and add in the mix the plans to construct FEMA concentration camps, and the fact that they have been stockpiling blankets and bodybags, and add to that the paramilitary exercises inside of U.S. cities and that the President has been asking top military brass if they would order forces under their command to fire on American civilians, and one must be a wee bit suspicious.

There has been considerable speculation that President Obama may declare a state of emergency if the GOP does not give him what he wants with the debt limit, by the way. See the New Republic article here http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115034/debt-ceiling-3-ways-obama-could-circumvent-congress and one by Bloomberg News here. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/obama-throws-cold-water-on-14th-amendment-to-fix-debt-fight.html

If Obama would do such a thing then he will have attained the status of a tyrant. The American People would likely rebel. I think Obama knows that and has been preparing for this all along (not this particular issue but something like it.)

Politico had this to say on the matter;

Make no mistake: Although the United States may well be headed for a catastrophic economic crisis, we are already in a monumental political and constitutional crisis. As a historical matter, were the House Republicans to push the country into the abyss, they would be creating a situation analogous in the past only to the nullification crisis of 1832 and the secession crisis of 1860-1. The emergency is that grave.

So what should President Obama do? First, he must make the self-evident case that if the Republicans go through with their threat to take the country over the fiscal cliff, they will have violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Explaining that the Republicans propose to act unconstitutionally would immensely strengthen his position in this emergency no matter what. He needs to make the argument loudly and clearly, without the lawyerly diffidence he has displayed."


"If the Republicans decide not the raise the debt ceiling, the solution to the political and constitutional crisis is clear. By his constitutionally dictated oath of office, the president is required to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. By defaulting on America’s public debt, the Republicans will have attacked the Constitution, giving the president no choice. If he fails to act by invoking emergency powers, based on his constitutional oath of office, and raise the debt ceiling, he will have violated that oath"

End excerpt.

That piece is by a history professor at Princeton named Sean Willentz. Apparently a coup d'etat is all the rage among the Leftist intelligentsia. (Please notice the argument too; "look what you made me do" the classic reply of bullies and criminals. Also, Milentz seems oblivious to the fact that the House of Representatives is coequal with the President and has a duty to rein the President back if he oversteps his bounds. The U.S. brings in more than enough money to cover our debts, but President Obama refuses to live within those means. Raising the debt ceiling is his way of demanding a blank check from Congress. Congress would be remiss in their duties if they were to let Obama blow as much money - other people's money - as he wishes. Is it any wonder America is in such sorry shape when a fool like this Milentz is a respected Ivy-League professor?)

What is Obama going to DO with those emergency powers? He certainly has been building up a private little army.

America only needs a fire in the Reichstag, er, Capitol building to complete Mr. Obama's "Change we can believe in".

Oh, by the way, I was trying to be funny with the spelling of coup d'etat as coup de tat. It may have been a bit subtle for most lefties, so I added the sic, in this case really sic, daddy-o!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 922 words, total size 6 kb.

<< Page 68 of 485 >>
118kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1322 seconds.
41 queries taking 0.0931 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.