" THE SYNTHESIS " 6-10-2011 EDITION: THE GREAT UNRAVELING... HEY I HEARD THE WHITE HOUSE IS HIRING... THE COUNTRY IS FALLING APART UNDER OBAMA !! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HjzTDFlhfE2PTumdaH0iX9vfb3eA3ywtODiwdDtMTys/edit?hl=en_US
LIKE THE AFRICAN NOVEL “THINGS FALL APART” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Fall_Apart
OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY HAS FAILED ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND DIPLOMATICALLY:
WITH THE ECONOMY FALTERING UNDER OBAMANOMICS WITH IT TANKING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF H.R. 4872, WHO DO YOU TRUST TO DO THE JOB?!
He gave away free money.... and where was Chuck Todd?? WASHING HIS TIGHTS!
@BarackObama Just how economically illiterate-economically suicidal-do you have to be to launch eye-wateringly expensive Obamacare program
@BarackObama not to mention bailouts/"stimulus" spending that's directed almost entirely to govt. workers, what hard-pressed taxpayers need
@BarackObama more govt workers to be kept wallowing in pork) in the midst of the biggest financial crisis America has seen since the 1930s?
Obama Adviser Leaves Post Amid Downturn
June 9, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk 
As the economy remains stagnant under the watch of President Barack Obama, one of the President’s top economic advisers has decided to retreat into academia. Austan Goolsbee stepped down as the Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers after spending less than a year in the position, reports The Associated Press. He will reportedly return to his teaching role at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. “Since I first ran for the U.S. Senate, Austan has been a close friend and one of my most trusted advisers,” Obama said in a statement. Fox News reports that Goolsbee’s departure could indicate that Obama is ready to try another approach to solving the country’s economic woes, as citizens grow angry at rising gas prices and little job growth. According to the Labor Department, the unemployment rate increased to 9.1 percent in May.
“Our economy is not creating enough jobs, and Democrats’ binge of taxing, spending, borrowing and over-regulating is a big part of the reason why,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
 *****by: AJA BROOKS, OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM VOLUNTEER FOR THE BLACK RIBBON OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEDIA BIAS AND FORMER 2009-2010 GA LOBBYIST FOR “LIFE AND LIBERTY”, NOW EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE 2011 TEA PARTY. |
THE DISCLAIMER: |
OBAMANOMICS HAS FAILED:
June 8 , 2011· Vol. 6, No.23
THIS WEEK IN AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM | |
June 6, 1944 – Allied Invasion of Normandy. America is exceptional in its historic determination to confront threats to liberty with courage and resolve. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, over 160,000 American and Allied troops took the shores of Normandy, France under heavy German resistance. Under the command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the invasion consisted of over 5,000 naval vessels and hundreds of aircraft. The bravery Allied forces showed in opposition to fascism and defense of freedom is legendary, and over 10,000 were killed, wounded, or missing in battle. The words of Winston Churchill describing the British Royal Air Force are equally applicable to the Allied invasion on D-Day: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” Join us in honoring the sacrifices of these exceptional Americans and Allied troops by recalling the D-Day prayer delivered by President Roosevelt 67 years ago this week. You can listen to the recording here. | |
TOOLS | |
NEWT'S LIBRARY | |
|
*The Danger of the Obama Recession Turning into the Obama Depression
by Newt Gingrich
Recent reports are a grave warning sign that Washington must act now to prevent the economy from becoming much worse. They make clear the urgency with which the job-killing policies of the last two years must be replaced by pro-jobs solutions for economic growth.
We learned last week that U.S. housing prices have fallen more than they did during the Great Depression.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, home prices have dropped 33 percent since 2006, compared with a 31 percent decline in the 1930s. The values of bottom-tier homes have fallen a disastrous 63 percent.
Nationally, this means home prices have crashed to the levels they were at in mid-2002—nearly a decade ago—while homes in many American cities, including Atlanta, Detroit, and Las Vegas, are now selling below their price levels in January 2000. Last week’s report from Standard & Poor’s warned that there is “no relief in sight” for this free-fall in prices.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Washington should have done everything possible to stabilize the housing market and the economy. Instead, President Obama and Democrats in Congress took the opportunity to pass the Dodd-Frank Act, sweeping regulation of one-sixth of the economy that promises to make the crash in home prices even worse.
Dodd-Frank gives the federal government the authority to deem certain institutions “systemically important” to the financial system, and thereby subject them to unique regulations at the arbitrary discretion of the Federal Reserve and executive branch. These institutions could include banks, insurance companies, and other large financial firms.
Although the Administration claimed that Dodd-Frank abolished “too big to fail,” it in effect will do the opposite, creating a class of financial institutions that have the government’s implicit backing and guarantee – potentially giving these firms an unfair advantage over competitors and even opening the possibility that the government could dictate decision-making at these firms.
The threat of arbitrary regulation becomes even more dangerous with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which Dodd-Frank created as a virtual appendage of the Federal Reserve. In the mold of Obama’s “czars,” it will be headed a presidential appointee and draws its funding from the Federal Reserve, as opposed to appropriations from Congress. The CFPB will have wide-ranging authority to regulate financial institutions, yet remains essentially unaccountable to Congress.
The cost of compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act’s hundreds of pages of regulations, as well new ones from the CFPB, will weigh significantly on large institutions and disproportionately on small ones. The mandates the law contains pose an existential threat to community banks, which will struggle to comply with the requirement to hold more capital and the onslaught of additional rules. The law is already killing community banks and crippling loans to small businesses and homeowners.
Dodd-Frank is terrible for the housing market, which is dependent on the very lenders for whom Democrats have chosen to raise costs and uncertainty. The result is the worst drop in home values since the Great Depression.
This is a tragedy for the millions of Americans whose homes are now worth less than what they paid for them just a few years ago, and for the millions more whose houses make up a large portion of their net worth. Even the most responsible homeowners are seeing their money evaporate in a housing market distorted by bad government policy.
Job-Killing Policies Kill Jobs
Another indication that the economy is getting worse, not better, was the jobs report last Friday which showed that unemployment jumped to 9.1% in May, with the economy adding a paltry 54,000 jobs. (Morgan Stanley has estimated that up to half of these—as many as 25,000-30,000—could be new low-wage, temporary employees on the payroll of McDonald’s, added during a big hiring spree after the April jobs report.)
The May jobs numbers reached only a quarter of the 200,000 jobs per month economists estimate are needed to start cutting the unemployment rate, and was far lower than the Administration had expected.
It should not have been a surprise. Job-killing policies kill jobs.
This was the theme of my newsletter one year ago this week, in the wake of yet another disappointing jobs report and in the midst of unemployment over 9 percent. A year later, the Left still has not learned that big-government, bureaucratic policies kill jobs, repress economic growth, and postpone prosperity.
If the president and Democrats in Congress have not realized this, however, the average Americans who feel the pain of unemployment, housing and gas prices certainly have.
Goldman Sachs’ chief U.S. economist reported last week that Americans’ optimism about their future income is at its lowest point in 25 years. Less than 15 percent say they expect their family income to be higher a year from now than it is today. This pessimism is the prospect millions of Americans face if the destructive policies of the Left are not reversed.
Crippling American Energy is a Job-Killing Policy
When President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. Today, it is more than twice that at about $3.77 per gallon. During the time in between, the president imposed a lengthy moratorium on offshore oil drilling, fought for a cap-and-trade bill that would have wrecked the economy if it had passed, and gave the Environmental Protection Agency unprecedented bureaucratic authority to dictate energy policy nationwide. (See my newsletters about the EPA here and here for examples).
With gas prices climbing towards $4 per gallon, it is critical that we remove the obstacles to greater American oil production and end the ban on oil shale development.
Instead, the president is committed to crippling American energy production along with his host of other policies that increase scarcity and kill jobs.
Washington Must Act Now
The reports of the last few weeks all indicate the danger of the Obama recession turning into the Obama depression. A single external shock such as a Greek collapse, a natural disaster, or an interruption in oil supply could push this weak economy over the edge. Washington must act now to get America growing again.
Ronald Reagan took just 23 months to end the Carter recession. In terms of today’s economy the Reagan model created the equivalent of 25 million jobs over 7 years, increased per capita income by $8,800 per year, and raised government revenue without raising taxes.
If President Obama had followed the successful Reagan model of low taxes, deregulation, a stable dollar, and more American energy, America would now be on a path of strong and sustained economic growth.
It is not as though we don’t know how to solve the current economic mess. We have replaced the destructive policies of the Left before, and we can do it today.
As I said last week, there are at least nine steps we should take immediately following the Reagan model to get America working again:
- Repeal Obama's scheduled 2013 tax increases for virtually every federal tax which threaten to turn the recession into a depression.
- Cut the capital gains tax to zero to promote investment in the United States and job creation.
- Cut the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world to match Ireland at 12.5 percent so that American companies can compete anywhere in the world.
- Adopt 100 percent expensing so American companies can write off new equipment to make sure American workers are the most productive in the world.
- End the death tax permanently so family businesses and farms can focus on job creation.
- Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley to free up new businesses to grow.
- Repeal the Dodd-Frank law which, as I wrote above, is killing small banks and crippling small businesses and homeowners.
- Adopt an American energy program to keep the $500 billion we spend on foreign oil each year here in the U.S. putting Americans to work.
- Repeal Obamacare to stop the destruction of small business jobs.
With 9.1 percent unemployment, housing prices in their worst decline since the Great Depression, and $4 per gallon gasoline, it is time to end the Obama recession by replacing the president’s job-killing policies with proven solutions for prosperity.
SOCIALISM & BOGUS-HEALTH-CARE-FOR-ALL HOLLOW AND EMPTY PROMISE WITH $14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT:
U.S. Government Has $62 Trillion In Unpaid Promises
June 9, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk 
Recent analysis from USA Today showed that the United States has $61.6 trillion in promises that have not yet been paid for.
The news source reports that last year the economy fell apart at a rapid pace under the watch of President Barack Obama, with $5.3 trillion in new obligations added last year alone. The amount of unpaid promises held by the U.S. amounts to $527,000 per household.
Corporations would be obligated to report such future promises to their shareholders, but the government does not add the expenses until the money is actually paid out, according to the news provider.
Another report, this one from the Treasury, found that America’s debt will be larger than the size of the economy this year, something that has not happened since World War II, according to the Chicago Tribune. Specifically, the debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to be 102 percent.
Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said that the report showed “why any increase in the debt limit must be paired with significant spending reductions and real entitlement reforms,” reports the news provider.
States Go to Court Over Obama Health Care Legislation
Oral argument heard in 11th circuit
Oral Argument in 11th Circuit:c‑span.org at 3:45pm
VIDEO PLAYLIST
WASHINGTON, DC
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?src=org1&msg=You+are+watching+the+C-SPAN+Networks&start=8079.345&end=-1
The Obama Administration faced another appeals court challenge to the new health care law today. A three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta heard an oral argument in the case of Florida versus the Department of Health and Human Services.
This latest challenge to the law is brought by 26 different states who have banded together in opposition to new law. The states’ argument is that Congress has exceeded its authority and is infringing on state’s rights.
A lower court district judge agreed with the states argument voiding the entire health care law after ruling that individual insurance mandates are unconstitutional. Currently two other circuits, the Sixth and Fourth, have heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. Those courts have not yet issued a ruling in those cases.
Updated: 7 min. ago
ATLANTA 11TH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES UPHOLD CONSTITUTION AS LAW OF THE LAND; NOT OBAMA, NOT DEMOCRATS, CITING AMERICA’S CONCERNS - INDEED THE MANDATE CLAUSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INFRINGES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND ECHOED OTHER PROVISIONS OF H.R. 4872 AS PROBLEMATIC:
Politics
Federal Judges Raise Questions About ObamaCare Mandate
By Lee Ross
Published June 08, 2011
| FoxNews.com
ATLANTA, Ga. – The public policy and legal fight over the legitimacy of President Obama’s historic 2010 health care overhaul took sharp focus in an ornate federal courtroom in Atlanta on Wednesday with two-and-a-half hours of arguments that may ultimately serve as a preview of what’s to come at the Supreme Court.
The Obama administration was faced with the difficult task of convincing at least two of the three federal judges hearing an appeal to overturn a January ruling invalidating the entire heath care law.
“Clearly, we believe the most difficult issue in the case is the individual mandate,” Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Joel Dubina announced at the outset. Indeed, most of the argument time focused on whether the law’s requirement for nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance is constitutional.
Dubina also noted that part of the difficulty of determining the legal viability of the Affordable Care Act is that the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on the application of the Commerce Clause that directly matches up with what Congress passed last year.
“If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congress’s power left?" Dubina asked.
June 8: Mike Griffith, of Canton, Ga., holds a sign during a protest against President Barack Obama's health care reform plan outside the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge's ruling that struck down the law.
Judge Frank Hull later asked whether Congress could pass a similar law which could require Americans to buy certain types of cars or solar panels to comply with federal energy policy. Her question encapsulated the fear shared by many: that if the law is upheld it will open the door to unprecedented federal intervention in people’s lives.
But, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said, “Absolutely not.”
The Obama administration’s chief legal advocate defended the law and said there is no chance for a slippery slope towards increased government regulation. He vigorously argued the law’s propriety and purpose: to make sure uninsured Americans have coverage and that insurance companies offer broader protections.
Judge Stanley Marcus offered his own hypothetical scenario, trying to find out if the government could force Americans to buy a coverage plan for long-term health care. Again, Katyal said that was a step too far from what Congress could do.
The law’s opponents already believe Washington lawmakers went too far in passing the legislation. “If you give Congress the power to regulate people who are not in the relevant market, then you’ve given them the power to literally regulate anything,” warned lawyer Michael Carvin, representing the National Federation of Independent Business, the plaintiffs in the case.
Katyal didn’t take well to his naysayers arguments saying “[T]heir solution is to ban the uninsured from the hospitals and leave bleeding victims, trauma victims and pregnant women at the door.”
For many, the fundamental debate is whether the Commerce Clause, which allows the feds to regulate interstate economic commerce, also allows the government to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy coverage or pay a penalty. In short, it’s a question over whether not having health insurance is an ‘activity’ and whether the government can regulate that decision.
“I would say that sitting in your living room and making an economic decision not to engage in the activity of purchasing health insurance cannot under plain English be economic activity,” said Carvin.
The other key plaintiffs in the case are the 26 states that sued to stop the law from taking effect. They were represented by Bush administration-era Solicitor General Paul Clement. “[The government has] a lot of authority to regulate health insurers and a lot of authority to regulate people who voluntarily purchase health insurance,” Clement said to a question from Judge Marcus. “But I would submit they don’t have the authority to compel people to engage in the transaction.” At the end of the case, Hull hit upon another controversial matter over the penalty that’s imposed on people who don’t buy insurance. She noted with some derision the government’s enforcement mechanism for collecting fines: essentially trusting that people who don’t comply with the law will tell the truth on their tax returns.
“How is that penalty even more collectible in any way than an unpaid medical bill?” Hull asked.
Five of the plaintiff states’ attorneys general attended the arguments and added another spin on that issue, with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott telling the media the administration was levying a new tax on Americans; one it never revealed during the health care debate.
The judges also spent time examining whether the individual mandate can be separated from other provisions and if expanding the umbrella of Medicaid eligibility puts too much of a burden on the states.
The judges aren’t expected to issue an opinion until summer’s end. Before departing the courtroom, Judge Dubina offered this prediction about the case ultimately ending up at the Supreme Court, “I doubt this is the last time we’ll be arguing this case.”
Obamacare Insurance Exchanges #1: No Workable Solution
This is Part #1 of a two part series on the Insurance Exchanges mandated by Obamacare. Part #1 focuses on the basic macro economics of the insurance exchanges and the financial impact it will have on the State of Georgia; Part #2 on the micro economics and the impact on the people and citizens in the State of Georgia. The information being presented in this paper is the assessment of the largest health insurance intermediary in the United States. It is the information provided to me by a Senior Vice President at this intermediary that regularly briefs Governors, CEO’s, Congressional committees, and state legislatures. This man is my brother-in-law and he knows this business having worked in the field for 38 years.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on June 2, 2011 that “Gov. Nathan Deal issued an executive order Thursday appointing a group of lawmakers, health care experts, state officials and advocates to study whether Georgia should create a health insurance exchange.“ [Deal appoints group to study insurance exchange, Carrie Teegardin]
GEORGIA SPENDS
This is a waste of time and energy, because the Insurance Exchanges are implausible and impractical. Obamacare’s Insurance Exchanges will not work nor can they be implemented by either the State of Georgia or the Federal government. There is nothing based on economic reality that can make the exchanges work without bankrupting and impoverishing all of us. If the State of Georgia attempts to implement something like these exchanges, it will be driven into bankruptcy almost overnight. These exchanges will require Georgia to take on disease/injury risk, increase the Medicaid roles, drive citizens off their private health insurance roles, and impoverish thousands.
No government is capable of being a health insurer, because it is not set up to do anything else but govern. Therefore the State of Georgia will need to partner with a current existing health insurer(s) to implement these exchanges. The insurers bring many capabilities to the state(s) insurance exchanges that can not be duplicated by Georgia. On the surface you may think partnering is easy, but not so fast.
Insurers have developed business models to manage both the supply and demand sides of healthcare expenditures. The supply side is managed with contracts between providers for services based on a diagnosis. Insurers negotiate provider pricing after negotiating and setting reimbursement rates, similar to Medicaid and Medicare. The demand side is managed through the creation of health insurance plans that include covered expenses, which are medical management, limitations, exclusions (plastic surgery), wellness initiatives, and disease/critical care management. Abortion is mandated by Obamacare to be included in health plans offered by the exchanges, so that needs to be modeled. To be really effective the partner in these health exchanges should be a national player such as AETNA, CIGNA, and United Healthcare. The reason; a regional player like Blue Cross/Blue Shield the largest insurer owning nearly 70% of existing plans in the country has its own unique problems.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a non-profit National Association made up of 39 independent community-based and locally operated plans. They do not work well together because of their business models. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Georgia offers plans in Georgia; Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina offers their plans in South Carolina, and in Pennsylvania there are four independent plans offered throughout that state. Each Blue Cross/Blue Shield entity is restricted to sell within their region and due to the intricacies of their region offer many different plans based on a risk assessment of that demographic base.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield entities determine medical criteria differently, which means judging and standardizing disease state and injury and the appropriate level of care in their region. This drives the criteria for provider participation in the network based on a community-local standard of care and cost. Simply put the criteria for provider participation in Colorado is different from Detroit. All of this varies by the plans and the providers are re contracted and re evaluated periodically. But in all cases claims payments, enrollment, and eligibility records are held at the local level. This is an enormous amount of work and it costs money.
A Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan in the exchange will not be practical for people that live and work in another state. Any state insurance department that implements the exchanges will need to be prepared to negotiate and work with multiple Blue Cross/Blue Shield entities in state exchanges across the nation to offset the cost of treating an out of state patient. This is an enormous problem and increases the risk to the state(s). It would be more effective to use one of three national insurers (CIGNA/AETNA/United Healthcare), but they only hold 30% of the plans in the nation. This creates an economic problem for the insurer and the State of Georgia. Imagine the cost to swap over 70% of the plans currently in Blue Cross/Blue Shield and other varying plans. The insurer will cherry pick the best risk and refuse the highest risk patients forcing them into Medicaid. They will not accept pre-existing conditions and the State of Georgia would have to assume this risk. Likewise, the State of Georgia most likely will need to put up the dollars for the work to swap-out all these plans.
CIGNA, AETNA, and United Healthcare (CAU) will not do this work for free. They need to make a profit as does the non-profit to cover overhead and maintain a reserve. This reserve is key, because there is risk that a plan will sustain an unanticipated loss due to disease or injury. For example, Joe Smith signs up with CAU in year one of the insurance exchange with or without a pre-existing condition and pays his $600 per month ($7,200) for one year. In the second year Joe gets an attack of Crohn’s disease and is hospitalized for three months at a cost of $500,000. CAU is out $492,800. Multiply this over an entire population in a state and the numbers are staggering. CAU will not assume this risk and will insist that the State of Georgia assume the risk. Obamacare mandates that pre-existing condition restrictions be lifted. This will drive up the cost of every plan in the exchange and the State of Georgia will be forced to accept this risk. Simply put the insurer will process claims and pay the provider, but the State of Georgia will be reimbursing the insurer for all the risk. Where does the State of Georgia get that $500,000? Answer: The Taxpayer
Part #2 will focus on the impact to the citizen.
1 Response to "Obamacare Insurance Exchanges #1: No Workable Solution"
Bert Loftmansays:
Bill, great job of explaining the problems with health care exchanges.
It is my understanding that HB 214 (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display.aspx?Legislation=32574 ) will go into effect on 7/1/2011. It creates a GA Dep of Public Health that will pave the way for ObamaCare. Within this bill the word Federal is mentioned 24 times. Our so-called conservative GA General Assembly continues to comply with unconstitutional federal regulations rather than trying to protect GA citizens from these intrusions.
SENATE
Senate Dems Distance Themselves from the Obama Agenda
By JAY NEWTON-SMALL Wednesday, June 8, 2011 | 46 COMMENTS
The Senate votes Wednesday on a measure that would delay the “swipe fee” provisions of the financial re-regulation bill. The vote, which essentially pits bank backers against supporters of retail chains, will be close. But the thing that interests me about it is its sponsor: Democratic Senator Jon Tester of Montana. Tester’s measure is the latest in a series by vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection next year to repeal, amend or distance themselves from the agenda Democrats pushed the first two years of the Obama Administration.
Earlier this year, the Senate voted to repeal the controversial 1099 provision of health care reform by a vote of 87-12. Forty Democrats, including 16 of the 17 Democratic incumbents, voted for the measure (Bernie Sanders was the only incumbent up for reelect who didn’t).
One Democratic senator, Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, has even voted to reappropriate stimulus funds to pay for unemployment benefits.
A whopping 23 Democratic Senate seats are up in 2012 – 17 incumbents and six open seats. Many of these incumbents – especially those elected in 2006 – ran as populists, criticizing the Republicans’ lack fiscal responsibility in Washington. They now find themselves defending their own fiscal records in an era where the government has grown – many would argue by necessity to avoid disaster – more than at any other time since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. Which is why to curtail that criticism so many Senate Democrats have taken trimmers to the bills they helped passed. And many more are voice outright opposition to some of the Administration’s outstanding priorities.
When running in 2010 to fill the remaining two years of Bobby Byrd’s Senate term, West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin famously took a rifle shot at a copy of the Senate’s carbon cap and trade bill. He’s not the only Democrat to express unhappiness with the bill. Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill all hail from coal producing states and are up for reelection. Not unsurprisingly, the bill has languished in the Senate after passing the House.
When the DREAM Act, another Obama top priority, came up for a vote earlier this year, five Democrats helped the GOP kill it, including Tester and Nelson. Manchin skipped the vote altogether.
President Obama’s 2012 budget was unanimously voted down in the Senate last month in a move that underlines how Democrats have become increasingly concerned about their record when it comes to fiscal responsibility. McCaskill went so far as to introduce an alternative bill with Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, which placed spending caps on Medicaid that West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller criticized as even more draconian than Paul Ryan’s budget.
Already in 2010, many Democrats ran against the President and Democratic leaders in Congress. Unless the economy picks up, it would seem that trend will continue and deepen in 2012, despite Obama’s presence on the ballot.
Related Topics: 2012, jon tester, obama, swipe fees, Senate
More ways to get Swampland
REACTIONS: VERY SATISFIED WITH OUTCOME OF HEARING, AND WE WILL PROCEED TO REPEAL, DEFUND, AND NULLIFY!
Nullification: Its Authority Comes from Winning
June 9, 2011 by Jeffrey R. Matthews 
PHOTOS.COM
Tenthers support the nullification principle by pointing to language in the Constitution and pointing to writings of those considered to be authorities on the meaning of the Constitution.
Is nullification authorized? The answer is “yes,” but not based on any argument I have seen so far from its proponents or opponents.
From what I have seen of both sides of the argument, both sides suffer a flagrant flaw in logic. My purpose is to clear it up.
Before I do, I want to express my personal point of view on the nullification issue. I think it is an imperfect concept, but that it can and should be used to further our efforts to clean up a system of government on the national level that has become utterly irresponsible, corrupt and inept at serving the needs of our respective societies as reflected in the diverse populations among our Nation’s 50 States. Nonetheless, I am going to take some shots at the logic of both its proponents and opponents. Proponents may not like my points; nevertheless, I think they are useful in putting our hands around the issues that are at stake and in avoiding the pitfalls of getting caught hostage in the trappings of the “other guy’s” logic.
What is nullification? While people can cite different acts which seem to fit the process, isn’t it obvious that nullification is really a process of engaging in civil disobedience?
People use rational processes to support their disobedience, and those processes can include a claimed reliance on God, natural law, fairness, reason… basically, anything which seems to speak to the hearts and reason of their audience.
In our case, we Tenthers support the nullification principle by pointing to language in the Constitution and pointing to writings of those considered to be authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. But let’s engage in an exercise to see how important those authorities really are.
What if the Constitution were written differently? What if all the Founders were in unison and there was no doubt that, as written, the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to do whatever it wants?
What would we do if that were the case? Obviously, we would all say, “Well, I guess the Feds are right.” And then, we would smile, sing “Kumbaya” and go home. I mean, really?
No, I don’t think so. So my point is proven. It doesn’t matter what words we find (or don’t find) on old paper. Disobedience is something we do when we think or feel that a certain authority is unjust.
So here we are today, going back to the Constitution, an admittedly yellowed parchment, as well as writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and on and on… looking… looking… scouring for proof — but proof of what?
My guess (and I know it’s just a hunch) is that if you’re looking for writings that were written more than 200 years ago to show proof that our government is in a mess today, you most definitely concluded our government was in a mess before you began your search. So why do you need Jefferson to tell you the government is in a mess? Certainly, you figured that out on your own.
Oh, that’s right. You don’t need Jefferson or Madison for that. You need them to tell you it’s right to disobey an unjust Federal government. After all, they did say that. So you want to mimic their logic to support your argument. And with those words in your arsenal, you can lead the world to the inescapable conclusion that nullification is the rightful remedy.
Jefferson might provide some good support. Same with Madison. But what you will not find in their reasoning is anything particularly transcendental or revealing. They simply did what they did and articulated their reasons for it, and that was that. Their reasoning is absolutely arbitrary and cannot be properly considered outside of the context in which they stated it.
In their cases, it had to do with the Alien and Sedition acts. As heinous as these acts were, it is easy to conclude that nullification is, indeed, the proper remedy. After all, who among us thinks it just and right to criminalize speech that criticizes the government? I would say that’s a pretty easy call. However, it is an exercise in futility to take from this any conclusion that nullification is always proper. Madison addressed it when he stated in the Virginia Resolution: “… in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…”
In the Virginia Report of 1799, discussing its resolution, the same type of language made clear that it was not the intent of the legislators to declare that the States had unfettered rights to engage in nullification. There, it was written: “It must be a case, not of a light andtransient nature, but of a nature dangerous to the great purposes for which the Constitution was established. It must be a case, moreover, not obscure or doubtful in its construction, butplain and palpable. Lastly, it must be a case not resulting from a partial consideration, orhasty determination; but a case stamped with a final consideration and deliberateadherence.”
Notice the adjectives which are italicized. Some were italicized in the original (“dangerous,” “palpable” and “deliberate”); I italicized the others to make a point.
What is a “light” case of usurpation? What is a “transient” case? Apparently, such “light” and “transient” cases do not justify nullification, according to Madison. But why not? Why shouldn’t every case call for it? If every case does not justify nullification, and if the Virginia Legislature was right to say so, then who is supposed to be the arbiter on what is a “light” or “transient” excess? Hmmm… Would that be the States? Certainly, it must be, because we know for a fact the Federal government is unlikely to admit it engaged in a usurpation in the first place.
So, OK, it’s the States. So if a State engages in nullification, here’s what we expect it to say in its defense: “It was really no big deal. We could have lived with the light and transient excess, but what the heck… We just simply felt like we had to go find something to nullify.” Of course, that would never happen. If a State nullifies, it is going to justify its action because the transgression was “simply not bearable.” So, by definition, no act of nullification will ever be wrong because no State, acting as its own arbiter, would ever do so wrongly (you will just have to trust us here).
To highlight further the flaw in the reasoning, how do these fine folks reach their final consideration on the basis of a partial or hasty consideration? How many times have we seen legislators proclaim they came to the right conclusion in a partial or hasty manner? I can just see them: “We decided to nullify after a five-minute debate. There was a lot to do on the agenda, including a resolution to wish Mabel Sinclair’s aunt a happy birthday. She’s such a nice lady, you know.”
We also see some similar language in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 (which revisited and re-commented on its 1798 Resolution): “That this commonwealth does upon the mostdeliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion,palpable violations of the said Constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister States in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal.”
Here we go with the adjectives again. More assurance that: “We don’t care to protest minor usurpations, but this one was a biggie! We know we’re our own judge on this matter because, after all, our State must be the final arbiter. What’s that you say? Oh? You would like to have a little input. No, thanks. You will just have to trust us. After all, our State’s judges are really, really good. But your judges? Myehhhh…”
I don’t mean to be overly critical of one side of the argument here. This same flawed approach comes from the other side. Those who think the U.S. Supreme Court is properly vested with authority to decide whether the Federal government has exceeded the scope of its authority are equally wrong. Simply put, you can’t vest one party to a contract with the sole authority to determine whether a breach occurred, who breached and what the rightful remedy should be.
So, basically, what we have is a theory of civil government that just does not seem to work from a purely logical perspective. Neither side can be trusted, and both are subject to error.
For those of you who are enamored by the concept of natural law, here’s a natural law for you: To the victors go the spoils (Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1).
In all the debate over nullification, the real question is: Is the process of nullification, itself, null? Well, it so happens this question was addressed in the 1868 Supreme Court opinion ofTexas v. White. In that case, the Court addressed the validity of Texas’ secession from the Union.
Relying on Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1, the Court wrote: “When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”
(Emphasis added.)
The Court essentially held that an act of a State that contravenes the Constitution is null and void. This same principle would hold that an improper act of nullification is, itself, null and void. This makes perfect sense. After all, if a person thinks something is Constitutional, then in his mind it must be Constitutional. That’s how arbitrating and judging work.
More important, the Court held that Texas’ act of secession could have been sustained only if Texas won the Civil War. This is simple and undeniable. Again, Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1 states, “To the victors go the spoils.” War has an uncanny way of providing answers. There is nothing more powerful than subjugation when it comes to prevailing in a dispute.
So this is why we have this Heritage Foundation guy, Matthew Spalding, who says nullification is not authorized. In trying to support his conclusion, Spalding says: “Jefferson did use the term ‘nullification’ in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution, but he makes it clear he is speaking in terms of an assertion of a natural right to revolution — admittedly and of necessity outside the constitutional structure.”
(Emphasis added.)
Whoa! Hold on a minute there, Spalding. Let me see if I can get this straight. There is this natural right to revolution. OK. Got it. And in the course of these revolutions, we can blow up things, kill people and subjugate the survivors among our enemy. Got it. But there couldn’t possibly be… there’s no way… not under any form of logic… not in a million years, a right to put a sentence together which says, “Your laws are not enforceable and will not be enforced here.” Instead, we have to skip that step and go straight for our guns. Errrr… Got it! “Plus one” for Spalding.
Spalding’s error, which coincidentally seems to be a similar error made by nullification proponents, is in looking at the problem through a microscope. How does a person possibly look at life through two sets of laws? One set, the natural law series, says that people have a right to rebel and engage in revolution to fix injustice. The other set, Constitutional and statutory law, does not authorize people to do that when its own procedures prove futile. At least, that’s the way they look at it.
The fact is that people, in the end, do not really care what words are written on paper and what reasoning process was used to derive them. What they care about is their general feeling of “is this right?” On that basis, they will do as everyone else does — Madison and Jefferson included. They will decide how important the issue is to them, and they will choose their responses based on how strong their feelings are that a change needs to be made or that they should at least not suffer the consequence of an injustice. I can assure you that Spalding most certainly must have, at some point, decided he was going to refuse to obey a particular law or rule because he thought it to be unjust. But now that he’s all happy again, nobody else can have the same privilege.
People who are relatively comfortable with the status quo will tend to rely much more often on the current statutory and case law. People who are less comfortable will look for other sources: natural law, religious law, original intent, etc. These are thought of as distinct principles, but they are not. They are nothing more than concepts which are readily available for the plucking when a point needs to be made. However, when you carefully listen to both sides and you watch the debate techniques they use, it is easy to see what is happening. It is all art of persuasion. There is no truth in either approach. And most important, none of it really matters all that much. No matter how much you might try, you can’t make me like broccoli. But if you’re strong enough, you can make me eat it.That’s the moral.
In summary, it ought to be obvious that neither side can really prove or disprove the propriety of nullification theory. The essence of the debate is invariably based on the argument that “my side gets to decide.” But clearly, we can see that no party to a compact can be the sole judge as to its own authority. A State no more ought to be the judge of its conduct under the Constitutional paradigm than the Federal government ought to be the judge of its own. The whole idea that either side of the argument thinks it can win on this issue is, for lack of a better word, not exactly deep.
It is what it is. It is a no-man’s-land. Nothing the Constitution says, and nothing any Founder or anyone else says or has said, will change that. I think the U. S. Supreme Court got it right in Texas vs. White. Might makes right. To the victors go the spoils. Nullification gets its authority from winning. The loser can just take a hike.
–Jeff Matthews
DAMN YOU RAHN MAYO --- LET OBAMA BE IMPEACHED ALREADY~!!!
@RahnMayo James Daniel Swayngim: Tea party will kick barry's ass back to kenya (FROM MY FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK --- HE NEEDS TO GTFO)
PETITION FOR THE HOUSE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE OBAMA FOR BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST: http://lnk.ms/PQkb5
PETITION FOR THE HOUSE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE OBAMA FOR BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST:
Committee on Ethics
1015 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-7103
Fax: 202-225-7392
Office Hours: Monday- Friday 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Committee Members
Democrats Republicans Linda T. Sánchez, California
Ranking Member Jo Bonner, Alabama
Chairman Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Michael McCaul, Texas
John Yarmuth, Kentucky Mike Conaway, Texas
Donna Edwards, Maryland Charles Dent, Pennsylvania
Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico Gregg Harper, Mississippi
To the concerned House Committee Members:
The Tea Party dutifully submits the following areas of concern, in regards to Obama’s unethical election activity and subsequent unethical behavior in Office regarding the following areas, concerning formal impeachment filed against him:
I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU WHY OBAMA BEING A NON-CITIZEN IMPACTS EVERYTHING HE DOES, AND WHY THIS HAS ENSURED HIS FAILED PRESIDENCY:
FIRST WE HAD A FAILED STIMULUS PROGRAM. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE FAILURE TO REVERSE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS, GIVEN THE FACT WE HAVE MILLIONS OUT OF WORK STILL, OR THOSE WHO ARE ONLY ABLE TO FIND WORK FOR 5-6 MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR.
THEN WE HAVE THE CORE BASE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION’S POLICIES THAT HAVE FAILED:
-FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY (has been speculative not conservative)
-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (global warming is only a factor, not the issue: kinetic energy drives storms and weather patterns which is due to overpopulation and technology increases. Driving up the cost of gas to say you created 2,500 jobs in Detroit so Obama can recoup the money that he invested in electric cars or green technology is not paying for itself.)
-FAILED SOCIAL POLICIES (requiring people pay for insurance when they’re not caring for their bodies is the government’s way of taxation on your health as a commodity, which is unconstitutional. Abortion has bankrupted the Congressional purse, Obama insists we offer these services, and continue doing more of them. Welfare and unemployment have drained us financially. Food stamps are the biggest issue of government waste, 37 states indicate fraud, though this Administration continues to lie and say that most people use them correctly. How many states does it take, or how many per population group to admit this is throwing away money into an abyss fueling societal decay and the drug wars, the very financing mechanism of the Taliban??)
-FAILED NUCLEAR POLICY INITIATIVES/DIPLOMATIC POLICY(we are stretched too thin. When Saddam’s head rolled, we should have left Iraq. Instead Bush Jr. engaged us in an unconstitutional stay longer than 2yrs., and Obama did not immediately withdraw. We have been slaughtered in Afghanistan’s mountains, instead of decimating strongholds, we have been engaging in a tedious ground war, and we have entered into supplying military action in Egypt and Libya, rather than getting NATO to act in accord, they have put it off on us. We have failed to deal with policy that has jeopardized our security, including accusing the entire country of Pakistan for harboring Bin Laden, when he may have long ago been dead in 2007, the hideout set up as if he was still there carrying out operations as a propaganda headquarters. This is what the Nazi’s would have done, if Hitler would not have been killed openly, and we have failed in showing the whole world that we will not tolerate injustice by perpetuating it with pseudo-New World Order type philosophy.)
-FAILURE TO UPHOLD EXISTING LAWS/THE CONSTITUTION: (deprivation of fair election, non-citizen status, DOMA, violation of freedom of religion and internet free speech violations/other free speech violations.)
The Tea Party declares that these 5 areas are not just impeachable offenses, as previously defined and submitted to Congress, Obama has betrayed the public trust and CONTINUES to do so. He has refused to sufficiently dispel his non-citizen status by waving around a forged copy, he has done this by delaying the court’s ruling until his 3rd year, unraveling the fabric of our country in the process by systematically tearing it apart from the inside. The Tea Party does not find any of his chicanery amusing, we are tired of being placated and slapped in the face; for Obama to remain in office as an internal traitor spits upon the very blood that was shed for this hallowed land.
We will no longer sit back, content for him to be elected out, we want him removed from Office now!
As undersigned on behalf of the Tea Party,
GA Tea Party Chief, Ms. Aja Brooks
 * | Aja Brooks |
May 27 at 8:17am · Like · Report
When a man acts like a coyote, he begins to think like one......
@RahnMayo we can appropriate for a state uninsured NON-MANDATED program, but the $ has to come from REAL REFORM, not tax increases.
@RahnMayo we can't collapse Medicare/Medicaid to expand Medicaid. We must reform both programs and justify cuts to make a state option.
@RahnMayo we are very satisfied that the judges conveyed our concerns without prompting or political deviation of party.
@RahnMayo we did not want a media circus, we felt a huge protest would detract from peaceful hearing, so we did not do that.
@RahnMayo very grateful w/outcome of hearing, felt judges represented taxpayers' concerns well: Democrats aren't law - Constitution is
@Governor_Deal we can appropriate for a state uninsured NON-MANDATED program, but the $ has to come from REAL REFORM, not tax increases.
@Governor_Deal we can't collapse Medicare/Medicaid to expand Medicaid. We must reform both programs and justify cuts to make a state option.
@Governor_Deal we are very satisfied that the judges conveyed our concerns without prompting or political deviation of party.
@Governor_Deal we did not want a media circus, we felt a huge protest would detract from peaceful hearing, so we did not do that.
@Governor_Deal very grateful w/outcome of hearing, felt judges represented taxpayers' concerns well: Democrats aren't law - Constitution is
GA TEA PARTY PRESS RELEASE TO GOVERNOR REGARDING OUTCOME OF 11TH CIRCUIT COURT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_115913775140626&view=doc&id=158766820855321
R.e.: Judicial reform committee/instating drug courts in Henry Co. and other counties to deal with these issues:
To our respected Governor Nathan Deal,
With yesterday's outcome of the 11th Circuit Court upholding the Constitution as the law of the land, concerns were reiterated regarding the uninsured. While I believe it is possible to provide coverage for the uninsured, it should remain optional, not mandated. We also can not collapse Medicare and Medicaid to expand Medicaid and offer less services. While it is true that health is the first wealth, we must teach people to care for their bodies and harness the power of youth to work and be profitable. While this seems laughable in the face of the fact Obama has wasted $9 trillion in less than 3yrs., and while I personally view it as disheartening to see everything I've worked for since I was 17 disappear by the age of 30, without starting a family of my own yet, I want to encourage you that while Obama is full of good ideas, his ways of doing them are terrible and we've not arrived to those desired ends and we can turn this around without him:
We must reform Medicare and Medicaid at state level, adhere to sunset laws and audit programs, and with those cuts create an optional program for the uninsured state-by-state. Every state can not carry the burden of another ineffective federal program. We should issue a legal injunction to do so, regarding the 10th amendment, prior to the Supreme Court hearing to protect ourselves from the damage of an inerrant and unconstitutional federal law and application of such legislation, provided Kagan and Sotomayor set us up for legal okey-doke of legislating from the bench.
While it is recent and fresh in our memory the legal infractions of high profile celebrities like: Ledger, Nicole-Smith, Lohan, Sheen, Houston, and the recent DUI arrests of Braves' players, whose lifestyles seem to glamorize the use of drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication in order to feel good, appear powerful, or have monetary affluence; all too well we are seeing the effects in our communities and on our tax dollars. We have a judicial system that is less concerned with the letter of the law, proper application and enforcement of the law with respect to the Constitution, and the respective consequences for breaking the law. While I attribute most of these problems to the Patriot Act, and while I feel that recension of this Act is necessary to abolish the pervading mistrust society has of government, I do feel it is necessary until the 9/11/11 landmark date.
The Tea Party stands for moderation, temperance, good judgement and personal habits. We strive for personal balance, and we aim to cultivate that in the lives of others around us by primary use of Pharmacopeia, 200 natural medicines originally used by Native Americans that compose the foundation of what modern medicine is today. We do not abdicate Allopathic medicine, which means using the strongest possible curative dose. In fact, we are Naturopaths, including the emphasis on food and nutrition, and of course, the use of tea for wellness. While we are steeped in Native American tradition, we are also culturally relevant to today's times. None of this knowledge; however, is antiquated or ineffective, but it has been abandoned in favor of money-making generators like MEGA Pharmaceuticals and government contracts. While the government can not mandate insurance or a particular treatment plan, there are alternatives to treatment that have been forgotten or abandoned in favor of the quick-fix, over traditional holistic means of wellness: diet, exercise, rest, stress reduction, supplements/as close to natural as possible. Our bodies and budgets have suffered tremendously from this mindset though!
While the Tea Party sees an elevation of negativity and departure from tradition, many are turning back to the old ways; though slower, the results are undeniable. We support the use of drug courts, yet we need them carried out in such a way that will benefit not just the government. We fear that the government exploits drug addicted individuals, at the expense of family and community to generate money for a corrupt system. While Georgia is not as bad as some states, that does not mean it hasn't seen its share of struggle from slipping into darkness at various times over 30 years.
While we would like to pilot legislation to make food and drugs safer by including labeling that would include the hormonal and dopamine content in food, we realize that legalization and decriminalization legislation will take a little longer to iron out.
Here are two ways that drug courts are to be effective at correcting deficit issues with the GA Budget:
1) Increase of fines, work release (ESPECIALLY FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT), and community service: jail time should be avoided as a very last resort by removing imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing because it drains the system. Whereas, the other means of fines, work release, and community service would increase revenue. It is a violation of constitutional rights to be deprived of freedom, except for tax evasion and violent crime.
2) The court should also ask how long a person can maintain sobriety. If they can only stay sober 90 days, drug treatment/counseling is in order. If you can stay sober 3yrs., the mandatory minimum 1-3yr. prison sentences only clog the system, draining us of valuable tax dollars. We need people working and contributing to society, not rotting in jail.
While I have continued working with the Governor's Office and local law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis regarding high-risk individuals involved with gang activity, it is pertinent that we restore individuals to society, or we have the fruit thereof; broken families, divorce, violent crime, and a system that is operating unconstitutionally by not guaranteeing a quick and speedy trial being inundated with the outworking of societal decay. What is the point of having a trial if you serve the punishment mete for the offense before the hearing occurs?? I know, because I did.
As taxpayers, we deserve better and we expect and demand it from our leadership.
May this serve as due submissions for your consideration Sir, regarding these matters and these matters of cohesive interest now through January 2012, as we continue to work for the good of all Georgians.
-Ms. Aja Brooks
GA Tea Party Chief
P.S. While we do not want to detract from the Republican Party, we would like to separate ourselves financially and distance our affiliations/associations from the recent corruption allegations submitted to the FBI regarding HC GOP. We would also like to register ourselves as the Third Party in GA with Tricia Pridmore as Chair, if she is up to task, or wants to go Independent; we will support her and others in the Republican Party to do so as we see fit.
--
http://ga-teapartychief.blogspot.com/
CREATIVE INNOVATIONS
Aja Brooks - Creative Director
5916 East Lake Parkway
Suite #107
McDonough, GA 30253
Production hours:
9AM-3PM EST MON.-THURS.
*now has mobile web*
EMAIL FOR NEW # TO TEXT
teapartychief@gmail.com
Find me online by typing Creative Innovations,
Aja Brooks, Synthesis, Synthesis Group,
2012 Anti-Deficit Purple Agenda, or
*MAD HATTER NEWS* in the Facebook Search Bar.
TEA PARTY LITERATURE 2009-2011 ARCHIVES:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=365798615431
Here are my online listings:
http://www.facebook.com/TeaPartyConsortiumhttp://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/thePhoenix http://www.facebook.com/pages/GA-Tea-Party/115334838544068 http://www.facebook.com/pages/WRITE-IN-RED-THE-RED-LETTER-CAMPAIGN-GOT-SOMETHING-TO-SAY-TO-CONGRESS/173207994643http://www.facebook.com/cholorecords http://current.com/users/THE_PHOENIX.htmhttp://creativeinnovations27.blogspot.com/ http://www.myyearbook.com/oijvblackribbonhttp://twitter.com/2011teaparty http://twitter.com/cholorecordshttp://www.myspace.com/creativeinnovations27 http://www.myspace.com/viptattoostudiotracerhttp://artid.com/PHOENIX_ART http://hubpages.com/profile/thePHOENIX2010
about an hour ago · Like · · Unsubscribe
Bill Evelyn @Aja. I don't think the 11th Circuit has officially ruled yet.
Bill Evelyn @Aja. I don't think the 11th Circuit has officially ruled yet.42 minutes ago · Like
Aja Brooks 1099 clause already voted on earlier this year to be struck from H.R. 4872, and the bill has been taken down from legislative websites too! Earlier this year, Senate voted to repeal 1099 provision of health care reform by a vote of 87-12. 40 Dems, including 16 of 17 Dem incumbents, voted for the measure (Bernie Sanders was the only up for reelect who didn't): http://lnk.ms/Q1FVv
41 minutes ago · Like
Bill Evelyn the debate is scheduled to continue all summer, with Supreme Court hearing the matter, and I do not believe you even read the post. The premise of the debate is that they upheld the Constitution. If you weren't there in person,...See More
38 minutes ago · Like
Bill Evelyn @Aja. I did read your post. "With yesterday's outcome of the 11th Circuit Court upholding the Constitution as the law of the land, concerns were reiterated regarding the uninsured." I asked because of the first sentence.
31 minutes ago · Like
outcome and ruling are not the same, people wanted to know how the outcome was -- the debate focused on upholding the Constitution specifically to GA's Patient Bill of Rights of being able to chose your treatment, which we would not have if...See More
20 minutes ago · Like
Aja Brooks If you read the entire post, you would see the proposal to Governor Deal about creating an optional not MANDATED program for the uninsured in our state by reforming Medicare and Medicaid, which must be done on a state-by-state basis. I recommend you attend a seminar by your state Insurance Commissioner, since you don't seem to understand what I mean by outcome as opposed to ruling.
18 minutes ago · Like
Bill Evelyn http://stateofgeorgiateaparty.com/?page_id=1779 I wholeheartily agree the exchanges are a disaster. I'm lobbying every State Rep and Senator to ensure it never happens.
Bill Evelyn Part #2 comes out this weekend.
16 minutes ago · Like
Aja Brooks that's awesome do you mind if I mention you/this in "The Synthesis"?
16 minutes ago · Like
Aja Brooks okay, if I can't wait for part 2 I will be sure to put your link to good use/thanks again
15 minutes ago · Like
THE “PEACE-LOVING” HIPPIE NEO-CON OBAMA AND HIS RETICENT BIRTHPLACE KENYA, HOW YOU CAN TAKE A CHILD OUT OF AFRICA, GIVE HIM A HARVARD EDUCATION, AND STILL, YOU CAN’T TAKE KENYA OUT OF BARACK OBAMA....
how is it that American schooling did not educate Obama past this???
YET THE MOST COMPELLING REASON EVER HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT AS A NON-CITIZEN WITH HIS PRO-ABORTION STANCE DRAGGING AMERICA INTO THE CLUTCHES OF IDOLATRY:
ABORTION KILLS ONE FUTURE TAXPAYER AT A TIME, 3,000 PER DAY http://lnk.ms/NgdHh
IDOL WORSHIP OF OLD RESURGING INTO MODERN DAY ABORTION AND CARCASS HARVESTING:
The parallel is astounding. The revival of child sacrifice is an uncomfortable subject, yet something we need to discuss from a historical standpoint in the church today.
Many of you may remember the church killing where an abortionist was killed in his church the day he attempted to become a deacon in the church. Scott Roeder became an avenger of blood, and killed Dr. Tiller where he stood. He is currently serving time for this. Many of the personhood movement are concerned with non-violent means of preserving life and innocence, and have introduced legislation to deal with gray areas of subject matter of existing laws.
Most of us do not recall the elaborate stone temples, fire pits in the middle, and statues with steps from which children were hurled by a priest or worship leader to their deaths as flutes and bands played.
UNLESS OF COURSE, YOU HAVE WATCHED THE MOVIE “THE BEASTMASTER” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083630/
Some childern were offspring of temple prostitutes, as men would pay the priests to sleep with them, in exchange for divination, oracle, or vow. Other children were bought from the poor people and the rich sacrificed them instead of their own children. Some children were slain, with their blood running down the temple steps, as Mayan and Aztec cultures did to their enemies or enacting judgment. Others were simply hurled into the fire after words were mumbled to gods.
Most of us do not equate an abortion clinic to a temple of old, as children are sacrificed to selfishness and greed, with the bodies being killed with taxpayer money, as many as 3,000 dying daily. More people are killed by abortion in one day than the entire 8yrs. of Iraq War. We are killing off future taxpayers, sacrificing them for what we think is a better future: the government pays for the abortion, and then the government buys the remains to do experimental stem cell research. Stem cell research has only been effective for organ regeneration; it has not yielded the cures that were so sought after for M.S., Cancer, Diabetes, etc. because the body rejects the stem cell injections at injection site, and often causes cancer as the body rejects the genetic material as not matching.
There is no good reason morally, spiritually, or even ethically for the government to fund abortions. We spend over $3 billion a year on abortion, performing 1.3 million abortions, 43 million per year worldwide. Over the past 30yrs., we decimated our society of taxpayers. Hitler, a major modern day proponet of abortion and eugenics while idealistic, was also an extremist, believing that he could eradicate disease with his experiments and science. The only thing he came close to accomplishing was the Holocaust of Jews, who without the rescue of the United States for the Jews loaing us money to fight the American Revolutionary War, may very well be extinct had we not interfered for Hitler trying to take over the world, not just Germany.
It is important to know history. It is often said that history repeats itself, and as King Solomon says in the Bible: "there is nothing new under the sun". With that in mind I hope you embrace this topic as more than just a politic topic, and that you discover how you play a role in society and what we want from our future as we rise from the ashes.
Here is some background on the culture of the past and how Obama is trying to revive this idol worship by what his Kenyan beliefs are.
Saturn (the latinized African equalivant of Ba'al Hammon) did not spare his own children; so, where other people's were concerned, he naturally persisted in not sparing them; and their own parents offered them to him, were glad to respond...14
According to the ancient myth, Saturn selfishly swallowed up the first five of his children in order to prevent his destined dethronement by one of them.15 Hoping to gain Saturn's favor and thus his blessing, the Carthaginians worshipped Saturn by imitating him. Serving a god with ungodly attributes, the Carthaginians were willing to submit to his murderous demands. Indeed Saturn's demands may have assisted the Carthaginians in their own self-serving plans. For the Syro-Palestinian archeologists Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff suggest that "Among the social elite of Punic Carthage the institution of child sacrifice may have assisted in the consolidation and maintenance of family wealth. One hardly needed several children parceling up the patrimony into smaller and smaller pieces . . . for the artisans and commoners of Carthage, ritual infanticide could provide a hedge against poverty. For all these participants in this aspect of the cult, then, child sacrifice provided `special favors from the gods."16 This suggestion is supported by archeological evidence at Carthage that the practice of child sacrifice flourished as never before at the height of its population as well as civilization."
THE ORIGIN:
Child Sacrifices
Child Sacrifices in Ancient Times
A rite performed in ancient Israel which has many parallels to the modern practice of abortion and is specifically addressed in the Scriptures. It was the rite of child sacrifice and Moses said it was one of the "detestable things the Lord hates" (Deuteronomy 12:31). In this paper the largely neglected parallels between the ancient rite of child sacrifice and the modern practice of abortion will be examined in detail.
Archaeological and Extra-Biblical Literary Data
Before the biblical texts which address the practice of child sacrifice are examined, it will be helpful to draw on some of the archaeological and extra-biblical literary data for the background they provide.
In 1921 the largest cemetery of sacrificed infants in the ancient Near East was discovered at Carthage. It is well established that this rite of child sacrifice originated in Phoenicia, ancient Israel's northern neighbor, and was brought to Carthage by its Phoenician colonizers. Hundreds of burial urns filled with the cremated bones of infants, mostly newborns but even some children up to age six years old, as well as animals have been uncovered at Carthage.
They were buried there between the 8th century B.C. and the fall of Carthage during the third Punic War in 146 B.C. On the burial monuments that sometimes accompanied the urns, there was often inscribed the name or symbol of the goddess Tanit, the main Phoenician female deity, and her consort Ba'al Hammon.' Infants and children were regularly sacrificed to this divine couple.
Fulfillment of a vow was probably the most frequent reason an infant or child was sacrificed as witnessed by the third century B.C. Greek author Kleitarchos (paraphrased by a later writer):
Out of reverence for Kronos (the Greek equivalent of Ba'al Hammon), the Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some great favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity if they are especially eager to gain success.3
A typical example of an inscription follows:
"To our lady, to Tanit, the face of Ba'al and to our lord, to Ba'al Hammon that which was vowed (by) PN son of PN son of PN. Because he (the deity) heard his (the dedicant's) voice and blessed him.4
Thus fulfillment of a vow before or after obtaining a special favor from the gods, a favor that brings blessing or success to the dedicant, appears to be the most common reason for child sacrifice. Occasionally, however, at times of civic crisis, mass child sacrifice was practiced as attested by the first century B.C. Greek historian Diodorus Siculus who reported the response of the Carthaginians to their army's defeat by Agathocles in 310 B.C.:
Therefore the Carthaginians, believing that the misfortune had come to them from the gods, betook themselves to every manner of supplication of the divine powers . . . In their zeal to make amends for their omission, they selected two hundred of the noblest children and sacrificed them publicly.5
The actual rite of child sacrifice at Carthage has been graphically described by Diodorus Siculus:
There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort ofgaping pit filled with fire.6
Plutarch, a first and second century A.D. Greek author, adds to the description that:
the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.7
There is conflicting evidence regarding the actual cause of death of the victims. Some reports suggest that they were burned alive8 while other reports suggest that the infants and children were slaughtered first.9 The victims, themselves, were members of both the wealthy mercantile and estate-owning class as well as the lower socioeconomic class as attested by the titles of the dedicants on the burial monuments.10 Occasionally, however, the upper class would substitute lower class children for their own by purchasing them from the poor and then sacrificing them as Diodorus Siculus reports:
in former times they (the Carthaginians) had been accustomed to sacrifice to this god the noblest of their sons, but more recently, secretly buying and nurturing children, they had sent these to the sacrifice.11
Two inscriptions at Carthage even show that occasionally the parents would sacrifice a defective child hoping to later receive a healthy one as a substitute. In one inscription a man named Tuscus says that he gave Ba'al "his mute son Bod'astart, a defective child, in exchange for a healthy one. "1z Child sacrifice probably became a standard practice for both religious and sociological reasons. Diodorus Siculus suggests that the:
ancient myth that Cronos did away with his own children appears to have been kept in mind among the Carthagians through this observance.13
The second and third century A.D. Roman lawyer and Christian apologist who was a native North African and spent most of his life in Carthage, Tertullian, wrote:
Saturn (the latinized African equalivant of Ba'al Hammon) did not spare his own children; so, where other people's were concerned, he naturally persisted in not sparing them; and their own parents offered them to him, were glad to respond...14
According to the ancient myth, Saturn selfishly swallowed up the first five of his children in order to prevent his destined dethronement by one of them.15 Hoping to gain Saturn's favor and thus his blessing, the Carthaginians worshipped Saturn by imitating him. Serving a god with ungodly attributes, the Carthaginians were willing to submit to his murderous demands. Indeed Saturn's demands may have assisted the Carthaginians in their own self-serving plans. For the Syro-Palestinian archeologists Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff suggest that "Among the social elite of Punic Carthage the institution of child sacrifice may have assisted in the consolidation and maintenance of family wealth. One hardly needed several children parceling up the patrimony into smaller and smaller pieces . . . for the artisans and commoners of Carthage, ritual infanticide could provide a hedge against poverty. For all these participants in this aspect of the cult, then, child sacrifice provided `special favors from the gods."16 This suggestion is supported by archeological evidence at Carthage that the practice of child sacrifice flourished as never before at the height of its population as well as civilization."
Biblical Citations
Child sacrifice was not confined to Phoenicia, Carthage and the western Mediterranean world. It was also practiced by the Canaanites and through the process of religious syncretism by some Israelites. The earliest reference to child sacrifice in the Bible is found in Leviticus where the practice is address by Moses in connection with Molech:
Do not give any of your children to he passed through (the fire) to Molech for you must not profane the name of your God. 1 am the Lord.
(Lev. 18:21; see also 20:1-5)
In I Kings 11:7, Molech is identified as "the detestable god of the Ammonites" and recent archeological evidence in the former territory of the Ammonites from the period of the Conquest supports biblical testimony that child sacrifice was practiced in Jordan roughly contemporarily with Moses."18 The Hebrew word Molech is the same Semitic root as the Punic word mulk which was found inscribed on several burial monuments at Carthage giving linguistic evidence for the continuity between the practice of child sacrifice in Canaan and at Carthage. But whereas at Carthage the word refers to the sacrificial offerings including human sacrifice, in Leviticus it refers to the god who demands child sacrifice.19 The "passing through" refers to sacrificing by burning in a fire.20 For this "passing through to Molech" (same Hebrew words in Leviticus and Jeremiah) took place later in Israel's history in the region of the high places of Ba'al in the Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jeremiah 32:35. This murderous scene was described by the Lord through the mouth of Jeremiah in earlier chapters:
For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built me the high places of Ba'al to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Ba'al - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth (possibly derived from an Aramaic word meaning hearth or fireplace but here referring to the precinct of child sacrifice)'' or the Valley of ben Hinnom, but the Valley of slaughter.
(Jeremiah 19:4-6; see also 7:31,32)
The history of child sacrifice in ancient Israel and God's response to the practice can be uncovered by examining the biblical texts that address it in the Pentateuch, historical books and prophetic writings. In the Pentateuch, Moses warns the Israelites who will soon enter the land of Canaan (Leviticus 18:3 and 20:21-24) where they will be exposed to the cult of Molech not to sacrifice any of their children to the god:
The Lord said to Moses, say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 1 will set my face against that man and 1 will cut him off from his people; for bygiving his children to Molech he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 1 will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.
(Leviticus 20:1-5; see also 18:21)
The penalty for sacrifice to Molech is harsh, i.e., stoning to death (Lev. 20:2); for it is a serious offense against the Lord.
1. It defiles God's sanctuary (Lev. 20:3) and since His holy presence cannot abide in a place polluted by sin it threatens abandonment by God of His people.
2. It profanes God's holy name making God appear less than the holy God that He is by inferring that He is a God who desires, or at least permits, child sacrifice.
3. God knew that the practice of child sacrifice to Molech was a form of spiritual prostitution (Lev. 20:5). God's relationship to His people is a close personal one with a human analogy in the sexual intimacy of marriage. God, of course, expects the exclusive commitment of marriage, not the pick-and-choose relationships of prostitution.
4. In Deuteronomy, God through Moses rejects child sacrifice even if allegedly done in the worship and service of God Himself (Deut. 12:29-31). In reference to the nations of Canaan that Israel was about to invade and dispossess (12:29) and the worship of their gods (12:30), Moses commands:
You must not worship the Lord your God in their way because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
(Deuteronomy 12:31)
With remarkable discernment Moses recognized that such unacceptable service can sometimes begin not as a conscious determination to do ungodly things but as an "ensnaring" by other nations and their gods (12:30).
Two of Moses' admonitions against child sacrifice are found in the stipulation section of the loosely covenant treaty form of Leviticus 1821 (Lev. 18:21) and the more rigid covenant treaty form of Deuteronomy23 (Deut. 12:29-31). In the covenants made between God and Israel, the Lord expected His people to obey the civil, moral and religious stipulations. His commands were to be obeyed because of allegiance to His Lordship and out of a sense of gratitude for His great acts of redemption (Lev. 18:2,3 and Deut. 5:1,2,6 and 12:1).
Failure to obey the covenantal stipulations is failure to give God full allegiance as Lord and failure to respond appropriately to His gracious acts of redemption.
Disregarding the covenant stipulations is a serious offense, some of which, including child sacrifice, are so grievous as to be punished by capital punishment which is to be done by the entire community (Lev. 20:2,3). If the offense goes undetected by the community, God Himself threatens to "set my face against" and "cut off" the offender (Lev. 20:3) - probably a threat of premature death.24 So detestable to God is child sacrifice that He even threatens to set His face against and cut off those who, though not participants in the practice, "close their eyes" to the crime (Lev. 20:4,5). Further, the warning not only applied to God's covenant people but to any non-Israelite living in Israel (Lev. 20:2). Child sacrifice was not one of the many tribal customs aliens who lived in Israel were permitted to practice.
In these Pentateuchal passages dealing with child sacrifice the offense is recognized as a sin in at least three different ways. As noted above it was seen as a sin against God, i.e. in defiling His sanctuary, in profaning His holy name, in spiritual prostituting to Molech and in ungodly worship of the Lord Himself. But child sacrifice was also perceived as a sexual sin and/or sin against the family as well as a sin against the community. In Leviticus 18 (see also Lev. 20:9ff) the stipulation against child sacrifice is listed among various sexual sins, e.g. incest (18:6ff), adultery (18:20), homosexuality (18:22) and bestiality (18:23). It is not obvious from the immediate context of Leviticus 18 and 20 why child sacrifice is linked to various illicit sexual practices. It is probable, however, that the worship of Molech not only involved child sacrifice but the pagan custom of cultic prostitution. In Isaiah 57:9, "Molech" (Melech in Hebrew. But it must be remembered that vowel notation was a later addition by Masorete scholars to the received consonantal text). is mentioned. Earlier in the chapter "those sacrificing their children" (57:5b) is in parallel with "those burning with lust" (57:5a). They are also described in 57:3 as "offspring of the adulterer and the prostitute." The Hebrew word for adulterer is masculine while the prostitute is feminine, indicating that the children are the offspring of an adulterous father and a prostituting mother. But the phrase is not to be taken literally. Rather, the declared attributes of the parents are in fact used to characterize the offspring themselves."
The connection between child sacrifice and cultic prostitution is even clearer in Ezekiel where we read:
And you took your sons and your daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and made them pass through (the fire) to the idols.
(Ezekiel 16:20,21)
Thus the Old Testament scholar Moshe Weinfeld links cultic prostitution with child sacrifice in Isaiah and Ezekiel saying, "The children born of cultic prostitution associated with Molech were presumably delivered to the idolatrous priests, even as the offspring of a regular marriage may have been handed over to Molech."26 Given that some of the children offered to Molech were conceived illegitimately during adulterous/prostituting affairs, it seems probable that child sacrifice offered a convenient way to dispose of the consequences of these aberrant sexual practices.
Another possible reason for grouping child sacrifice with illicit sexual practices is that they are all sins against the family. Of the sexual sins listed together in 20:l0ff, the Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser, Jr., says: "Every assault against an individual here is simultaneously an attack on the very existence of the family."27 Kaiser sees these sexual sins all as sins against the family since they disrupt normal family relationships.
It is possible then that child sacrifice, which was clearly an assault against the family, came to be associated with other stipulations that protected the family. Since the family was the foundation of Israelite society, any threat to the family was a threat to the community as well. Thus, the community was to be vigilant in guarding against the practice and was to take the severest community action against any offenders, i.e., stoning to death.
Despite the covenantal stipulations and warnings against child sacrifice, Scripture records that some Israelites did in fact practice child sacrifice. Of Ahaz, the 8th century B.C. king of Judah, we read:
He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even made his son pass through the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.
(2 Kings 16:3) Sadly Ahaz's grandson Manasseh followed in his footsteps (2 Kings 21:6). But these accounts of child sacrifice were not isolated as recorded by Jeremiah (see above). Being a prophet of God it was Jeremiah's obligation to prosecute on behalf of God the covenant lawsuit against those who had broken the covenant. The evidence against the Israelites was incontestable for it was publicly visible to all. As the Lord's mouthpiece, Jeremiah testifies against Judah:
They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire - something 1 did not command nor did it enter my mind.
(Jeremiah 7:30,31; see also 19:4,5)
Because of this offense for which Israel is corporately responsible, Jeremiah predicts disaster (7:32-34 and 19:1-3), 6-15). If only the people would repent, disaster could be thwarted (Jeremiah 18:5-11). But the Israelites were a "stiff-necked" people who would not listen to God's words (Jer. 9:15; see also 18:12; cf 18:5-11). They had forsaken their God to serve other gods even to the extent that they would sacrifice their own children spilling "the blood of the innocent" (Jer. 19:4). Mannaseh's grandson Josiah had tried to bring about reformation among the Israelites. After renewing the covenant between God and His people
(2 Kings 23:1-3), Josiah: desecrated Topheth which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to make his son or daughter pass through the fire to Molech.
(2 Kings 23:10) But Josiah's reformation was short-lived as evidenced by Jeremiah's prophetic witness (see above). God used Rome to judge Carthage in 146 B.C., bringing an end to child sacrifice there. Hundreds of years earlier God used Babylon to judge Israel when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, leveling God's temple which signified God's just abandonment of His people, and leading Israel into captivity. While exiled in Babylon, Ezekiel reminded the two prostituting sisters Oholah (representing Samaria in Ezekiel 23:4) and Oholibah (representing Jerusalem) of the reason they had been exiled. In confronting the two with "their detestable practices" the Lord through Ezekiel said:
they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols, they even made the children they bore to me pass through the fire) as food for them.
(Ezekiel 23:36,37)
Idolatry had not disappeared by New Testament times, but took on a broader meaning. Commenting on- the New Testament authors' understanding of idolatry, Herbert Schlossberg notes that "a man can place anyone or anything at the top of his pyramid of values, and that is ultimately what he serves. The ultimacy of that service profoundly affects the way he lives."28 Physical idols were still common in New Testament times, e.g. I Corinthians 8:4,5. However, in Pauline theology idolatry is also recognized as any worshipping or serving the creature rather than the Creator which is equivalent to exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25 cr 1:23).29 Placing anything above the Creator and His truth is idolatry, for in this idolatry the creature's erroneous value judgments are substituted for the Creator's correct ones. Sadly, people know the truth but suppress it (Romans 1:18). For God has revealed His nature, power and laws both in the visible world and in the hearts and consciences of humanity (Romans 1:19,20, 2:14,15). But mankind is on a downward spiral of depravity and destruction that begins with devaluing the Creator and His truth and ultimately leads to an outpouring of God's just wrath at the final judgment (Romans 1:24-32, 2:5,8,9,12). Even now mankind is experiencing God's wrath as He gives men over to the consequences of their sin (Romans 1:27,26,28). Apart from God's gracious intervention, all mankind faces the present and future revelation of God's just wrath. But as recipients of God's righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus, we have been justified (Romans 1:17, 3:21-28). Having been justified by His grace, our lives must not be conformed to his world's idolatrous values but be transformed by the renewing of our minds to God's perfect will (Romans 12:2).
Parallels of Abortion and Child Sacrifice
At the risk on the one hand of pointing out obvious parallels and on the other hand of suggesting parallels which some may say are forced, we compare the ancient practice of child sacrifice with the modern practice of abortion. However, before going any further it should be noted that the parallels between the two have been recognized for centuries. Tertullian, for example, commenting on the Roman practice of infanticide by comparing it to the Carthaginian practice of child sacrifice admonishes:
there is no difference as to baby killing whether you do it as a sacred rite or just because you choose to do it.
In the same context Tertullian describes the Christian attitude towards both abortion and infanticide saying:
For us murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one take away the life once born or destroy it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man, the fruit is always present in the seed.30
The most obvious parallel between the rite of child sacrifice and the practice of abortion is the sober fact that the parents actually kill their own offspring. There are however many other parallels. At Carthage the main reason for sacrificing a child was to avert potential dangers in a crisis or to gain success through fulfilling a vow. Today many times when a woman faces an unwanted pregnancy, abortion seems to be the only way to resolve the crisis she finds herself in. The potential danger to reputation, education, career, etc., become overwhelming. To avert the seemingly terrifying consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term, the woman may turn to abortion as a means of escape. Another woman may experience much less of the anxiety and fear that accompany a crisis. She may simply see the pregnancy as an intrusion into her self-serving lifestyle and an obstacle in the way of the road to her success. Sadly this woman's offspring must be sacrificed so that she can continue uninterrupted with her plans for the future.
It is no secret that in American society extramarital sexual intercourse (fornication and adultery) is the cause of most pregnancies that end in abortion. Pregnancy is a risk many are willing to take knowing that any undesired consequences can be eliminated by abortion. The theologican Carl Henry recognizes this fact in calling abortion "the horrendous modern immolation of millions of fetuses on the alter of sex gratification."" As suggested earlier, child sacrifice in Canaan may have been a convenient way to dispose of the consequences of the illicit sexual practice of temple prostitution associated with the cult of Molech. If so, the modern practice of men irresponsibly engaging in sexual intercourse with women to whom they do not intend to commit themselves and provide for parallels the wayward Israelite man engaging in extramarital relations with a temple prostitute. In both cases the men leave the women to bear the consequences of their aberrant sexual practices. New England Christian Action Council executive director John Rankin rightly calls this irresponsible behavior of men towards women as "the ultimate male chauvinism."32
As noted earlier, child sacrifice may have been a means of population control at Carthage. At present around the world abortion is sanctioned, even encouraged, by some societies as a means of population control. In China, communist party agents actually impose great social and economic pressure on couples to abort their offspring if they already have one child. In this country, the sanctions are more subtle. Presumably, Medicaid-funded abortions afford the poor equal access to medical care, but one wonders whether some wealthy policy makers hope to control population growth among the poor under the guise of good will. In this there is an intimation of a parallel to the Carthaginian practice of the wealthy buying the poor's offspring to sacrifice in place of their own children. Apart from state funding, occasionally both the rich and the poor will abort later pregnancies if they feel their families are large enough. As at Carthage, socioeconomic concerns often play a prominent role in the decision.
Sometimes the Carthaginians sacrificed defective children in exchange for healthy ones. It is now standard medical practice to do an amniocentesis at an early stage of pregnancy when congenital abnormalities are suspected. If an impairment is confirmed, the parents are advised to consider terminating the pregnancy. To carry to term and raise a defective child is not expected of the parents since they can exchange the frail one they now have for a healthy one in the future. In some states obstetricians who fail to advise their patients of the need for an amniocentesis can be successfully sued for malpractice on the legal grounds that the delivered infants are "wrongful life."33
Even the actual rite of child sacrifice has modem parallels in the medical techniques used to perform abortions. In the saline abortion the dying infant is chemically burned as it thrashes about for minutes to hours before finally succumbing. In the suction abortion the loud whir of the vacuum pump muffles the sound of the mother crying out in pain and sadness and the ripping and gushing sound of the infant being tom piecemeal from the womb.
Finally, the flourishing of abortion in modern America, like child sacrifice in ancient Carthage, at the height of its civilization is an unmistakable parallel. The words written by P. Mosca at the conclusion of his doctoral dissertation dealing with child sacrifice might well be written of abortion today, ". . . it is impossible to deal with this subject at any length without coming to terms with the human dimension: how could a culture so well developed morally, intellectually and materially tolerate so 'abominable' a custom? How could a sophisticated people sanction what seems to be such a barbaric practice for so long a time? How at the most visceral and critical level could human parents bring about the destruction of their own child?"34
One religious truth emerges in comparing ancient child sacrifice to modem abortion, i.e., people become like the gods/God they worship. The Carthaginians worshipped Ba'al Hammon, equivalent to Kronos and Saturn. Not surprisingly they became like him, willing to sacrifice their children to avert potential danger and gain success in their self-serving endeavors. Modern autonomous man worships himself and is willing to abort his own offspring in order to resolve crises and achieve his own goals. In serving the idolatrous self, men become more and more like the self-serving idol they worship, i.e. sinful man. They are willing to disregard any of God's gracious laws in order to accomplish their own ends. In their self-idolatry men have set themselves on a downward spiral of depravity and destruction from which only God's gracious mercy can deliver them.
In contrast to those who worship themselves, those who worship the holy God become holy. God sets Himself before His people as the standard of righteousness, "Be holy because I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev. 19:2). In serving this righteous God, men and women become more and more like Him in righteousness. Of course, even the holy people of God have faith not in their own righteousness, but in the saving work of their righteous Lord, Jesus Christ.
Conclusions
Since there are many parallels between ancient child sacrifice and modern abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that the attitude of our unchanging God towards abortion today is similar to His attitude towards child sacrifice in the past. What then can we rationally surmise is God's judgment regarding the practice of abortion both among Christians and those who are not His people?
Like child sacrifice in ancient Israel, the practice of abortion by Christians is spiritual prostitution to an idol, defiles God's sanctuary and profanes His holy name. God alone is the Author of life and it is not the creature's prerogative to question the Creator's wisdom in bringing to life a fellow human being at conception. Whenever men disregard their Creator's wise judgment by destroying His innocent creation, they are serving another god. They are, in fact, spiritually prostituting themselves to the idolatrous self whom they believe is wiser in its value judgments. Some values which are put forward to justify abortion are clearly idolatrous, e.g., the mother's right to choose, which is placed at the top of the pyramid of values by those who call themselves pro-choice. Other idolatrous values are more subtle, e.g., empathy for a mother's suffering in the midst of the crisis arising from an unwanted pregnancy or concern for the quality of life of a defective fetus. Both of these later values are good in themselves but become idolatrous when they abrogate the Creator's wise judgment in creating human life. It is not as though God fails to realize in creating some human beings that they may become a source of conflict in an unplanned conception or that a handicapped person will indeed face difficulties.
Whenever Christians disregard the Creator's true value judgments, they dethrone God and by their sin defile the temple in which He dwells, the temple of their own body (see I Corinthians 6:19). Dethroned and defiled by the idolatrous sin of abortion, God threatens to abandon the wayward Christian unless there is repentance. For God will not dwell in a temple in which another god is enthroned and a sanctuary polluted by sin. And the Christian who approves of or participates in the sin of abortion not only affects himself but he profanes God's holy name. People intuitively know that a man's attitude and behavior reflect his values. The Christian claims that God's authoritative Word determines his values. If a Christian then speaks or acts in away that is contrary to that Word, he brings dishonor to God's name. For to those who do not know God, the Christian is their chief witness to the Word of God. And the Christian who approves of or participates in the practice of abortion is testifying to the world that his God condones the practice. He is in reality bearing false witness, for by his attitude and behavior he infers that the Creator consents to His creatures destroying innocent fellow creatures. This false witness actually implies through his testimony that God is at odds with Himself. For in creating a human being God has clearly judged it to be of value. If God approved of abortion, He would be essentially saying that his value judgments are sometimes wrong.
Many Christians who accept or take part in the practice of abortion have not made a conscious decision to sin and bring dishonor to God by condoning idolatrous values. Regardless of the motive, however, these Christians are unacceptably serving God. Indeed God hates the detestable sin of abortion. For not only is abortion a sin against God and His innocent creation but it is a sin against the family and community as well. Scripture throughout teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord and that loving nurture is the godly response of parents toward their offspring. Abortion is the rejection of the God-given role to parent His creation. For an unmarried woman unable to cope with the doubly difficult role of single parenting, the child may be God's gift through her to a barren couple within the community. Whether God's blessing is received and lovingly nurtured by the biologic parents or given to adoptive parents, the birth of a child is a blessing to the family and community.
Often abortion is the evil solution to the consequences of a sexual sin. Whether a pregnancy results from fornication or adultery, where the mother is a guilty participant in the sin, or a pregnancy results from rape or incest, where the mother usually is the guiltless victim of another's sin, abortion is an ungodly solution. For the Sovereign Redeemer is able to bring about good where there was evil. A new creation resulting from a sexual sin is an extraordinary witness to this redemptive truth.
Sadly many Christians refuse to completely submit to the Lordship of the Creator and fail to appreciate the redemptive power of their God to save man from the full consequences of sin. The defective fetus is the victim of that original sin which resulted in the fall of all creation. A mother may be the victim of her own or another's sexual sin or the victim of corporate societal sin, e.g., unjust poverty. In all of these situations abortion has no redeeming character; for God never deals with sin or its consequences by countering it with sin but with righteousness. The unhealthy child should be loved and cared for more not less because of its weakness. The pregnant woman should be counseled to do what is right and given assistance in every possible way to support a godly decision to nurture in her body God's creation during its first nine months of life. Christians must always affirm, both by word and deed, the sovereignty of the Creator and recognize His power to righteously redeem mankind from the results of sin.
Up to this point we have been trying to discover God's attitude towards abortion among Christians, based on Scripture's testimony of His attitude towards child sacrifice among the Israelites. We now turn to God's judgment regarding abortion among those who are not Christians and the Christian response to the practice among them.
As previously noted in the theocratic nation of Israel, some non-Israelite customs were tolerated and some, like child sacrifice, were not. Today God's people in the United States do not live in a theocracy; rather, they live in a democratic state. As such, Christians must determine, based on the principles of God's law, when they should become actively involved in the democratic process to restrict the behavior of some individuals in the interest of other individuals and society-at-large and when they should tolerate different values and customs. Abortion is clearly a practice which is intolerable and must be restrained by the state. For abortion is the denial of the inalienable God-given right to life" of an innocent human being and it is an attack at the very foundation of our society, i.e., the family and community. Even many of those who are not Christians acknowledge that abortion is wrong. For God's law is written on the hearts of men and women to which their conscience bears witness (see Romans 2:14). Others have suppressed God's truth by substituting their own self-serving idolatrous values. The truth of God's power and divinity have been revealed in creation (see Romans 1:18ff). But men and women have suppressed this truth and their rejection of this revelation of God is clearly evident in the sin of abortion. For scarcely is the power and divinity of God more clearly seen than in His creative power bringing to life each human being, everyone made in His own divine image (see Genesis 1:27). No man-made technology has the power to create life, much less a human life stamped with the divine imprimatur. Rather, through the medical technology of abortion mankind rebels against the creative power of the Almighty by destroying the divine image-bearers. No, abortion is not acceptable as practice by Christians or non-Christians and must not be tolerated by this or any other society. Those individuals who fail to heed God's law by condoning abortion will surely face God's judgment if they remain impenitent. Even those who do not condone abortion but fail to take action against it will face judgment. For as noted previously in Leviticus both the Israelite who sacrificed his child to Molech and those who closed their eyes to the sin faced the judgment of God. And if a society as a whole persistently rejects God's laws it will surely corporately face God's judgment. The city of Carthage and the nation of Israel are but two of many historical testimonies to the outpouring of God's wrath against unrelenting corporate sin.
Something is happening in this land which God did not command nor did it enter His mind - this place is being filled with the blood of the innocent. So beware, for blood is on our hands and God will set his face against us unless we repent and are cleansed by his merciful forgiveness.
This is what the Lord says:
Look I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from
your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.
(Jeremiah 18:11)
Oh, that we might not respond like ancient Israel.
It is no use. We will continue with our own plans, each of us will follow the stubborness
of his evil heart.
(Jeremiah 18:12)
1. Kline, M.G., "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1977, p. 193.
2. Harden, D., The Phoenicians, 1962, p. 88.
3. For translation see Mosca P.G., Child Sacrifice in Caananite and Israelite Religion, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1975, p. 22.
4. Stager, LE. and Wolff, S.R., "Child Sacrifice at Carthage - Religious Rite or Population Control?", Biblical Archaelogy Review, Jan./Feb. 1984, p. 45.
5. Siculus, Diodorus, The Library of History, Book XX:14, The Loeb Classical Library.
6. Ibid.
7. Plutarch, De superstitione 171, The Loeb Classical Library.
8. Mosca, P.G., op. cit., p. 27, Mosca translates Kleitarchos' paraphraser from Scholia to Plato's Republic as follows: "There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the `grin' is known as `sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing."
9. de Vaux, R., Studies in Old Testament Sacrifices, 1964, p. 81. de Vaux says that slaughter preceding the cremation "has been well established by J. Guey in melanges d'archeologic et d'histoire, 1937, pp. 94-99."
10. Stager, L.E. and Wolff, S.R., op. cit., pp. 45, 47, citing P.G. Mosca's epigraphic work documented in his Ph.D. dissertation op. cit.
11. Siculus, Diodorus, op. cit., See also Plutarch op. cited where he says "Those who had no children would buy some little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds."
12. Kennedy, C., "Queries/Comments," Biblical Archeologie Review, May/June 1984, p. 20, citing J. Feuvier's article "Une Sacrifice d'Enfant chez les Numides," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philogic et d'Histoire Orientales et Slave,1953.
13. Siculus, Diodorus, op. cit.
14. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX: 4 The Loeb Classical Library.
15. Hamilton, E., Mythology, 1940, pp. 65, 66.
16. Stager, L.E. and Wolff, S.R., op. cit., pp. 50,51
17. Ibid., pp. 40-42. The archeologic evidence to support their conclusion is the greater proportion of human remains to animal remains in the most recent burial urns.
18. Wenham, G.J., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament - The Book of Leviticus, 1979, p. 259. There are text critical problems with I Kings 11:7. It may be that Milcum should be substituted for Molech in this verse (see I Kings 11:5, 33 in Hebrew)
19. Some scholars suggest that some uses of Molech in the Old Testament may have originally been used to refer to the live sacrificial offerings like Punic mulk. e.g., Mosca, P.G., op. cited, for summary see conclusions of chapter two and three.
20. Some scholars unconvincingly suggest that the "passing throught to Molech" was a ritual "passing through" without active sacrifice. e.g., Snaith, N.H., "The Cult of Molech," Vetus Testamentum, 1966, vol. 16, pp. 123, 124. For the best refutation of this view see Mosca, P.G., op. cited, esp. p. 152; also see the Jeremiah passages quoted in this paper.
21. Smith, W.R., Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 377. Note the reference to the fire pit of Topheth in Isaiah 30:33.
22. Wenham, G.J., op. cit., p. 249.
23. Kline, M.G., The Treaty of the Great King, 1963, pp. 79-83.
24. Wenham, G.J., op. cit., pp. 285, 286.
25. Whybray, R.N., Isaiah 40-66: New Century Bible, 1975, p. 202.
26. Weinfeld, M., Ugarit-Forschungen IV, 1972, p. 144. Translation by P. Mosca, op. cited, p. 143.
27. Kaiser, W.C., Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, 1983, p. 124.
28. Schlossberg, H., Idols for Destruction, 1983, p. 6.
29. Romans 1:23 and 1:25b mutually inform each other as indicated by the identical Greek verb translated "exchange" and parallel sentence structure.
30. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX.- 6,8.
31. Henry, C. in reviewing G. Jone's book Brave New People, 1985, see book cover.
32. Rankin, J.C., Contrabortion, June 1984, pg. 1.
33. Schmidt, S.M., "Wrongful Life," Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 28, 1983, Vol. 250, pp. 2209-10.
34. Mosca, P., op. cit., pp. 273, 274.
35. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, July 4, 1776.
Aja Brooks
Best joke ever!
3 hours ago · Like · 
Obama goes to a primary school to talk to & to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand & Obama asks him his name. " Stanley ," says the little boy."And what is your question, Stanley ?""I have 4 questions: 1st, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? 2nd, why are you President when John McCain got more votes? 3rd, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?" 4th, why are we so worried about gay-marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance? Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kids that they will continue after recess. When they resume Obama says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that 's right: question time. Who has a question? Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points to him & asks his name."Steve," he says. "And what is your question,Steve?" Actually, I have 6 questions. 1st why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? 2nd, why are you President when John McCain got more votes? 3rd, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? 4th, why are we so worried about gay marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance? 5th, why did the recess bell ring 20 min early? And 6th, what the hell happened to Stanley ?"Susan Dunn Kravarik Too funny!!!MAY IT ALSO BE NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH SPEAKER DAVID RALSTON IS MORMON, THAT HE REFUSED TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBJECT TO DEBATE PRE-NATAL MURDER, AND THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAS STALLED FOR TWO YEARS, http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/versions/hb1_LC_21_9986_pf_2.htm, MAKING ABORTION, IDOLATRY, AND OBAMANOMICS A RACKET TO ATTEMPT TO PROFIT OFF OF CARCASS HARVESTING, WHEN STEM CELL RESEARCH SUCCESS HAS ONLY BEEN LIMITED TO ORGAN REGENERATION; A COMPLETE WASTE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS, COSTING US A RATE OF $3 BILLION A YEAR. 
@BarackObama we think America was exceptional until you farced the Office. Now you make Americans look exceptionally stupid wasting $9 trillion
GOVT. CAN'T CONTROL OUR LIFE AS A COMMODITY THROUGH H.R. 4872/HEALTH INSURANCE, OR IT WILL KILL US FINANCIALLY yhoo.it/mUhVJ7
Fed survey: Economy falters in several regions yhoo.it/mUhVJ7 via @YahooFinance Fed banks in NY, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago@BarackObama it's all gravy you think that we're going to pay for your health care, I do not want your program, and I want you impeached.@BarackObama the health care legislation needs to be repealed because it doesn't address sunset laws more stringently on related programs.
@ @BostonTeaParty @GayPatriot Obama can't lay off the crack rock, so he bans lightbulbs for the entire country. OBAMA AND CRACK IS WAY WHACK!
@ @foxnation TELL WEINER TO TAKE OBAMA WITH HIM»
by 2011teapartymore Corruption and obstruction of justice. Social Security and Selective Service are now blocking access for citizens to verify Obama’s...OH BUT OBAMA WANTS INDIANA TO PAY FOR ABORTION, KILLING OFF THE NEXT GENERATION OF FUTURE TAXPAYERS WHEN WE HAVE A $14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. HERE ARE SIX GOOD REASONS THAT DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT SUBJECT WE JUST DISCUSSED, AS TO WHY OBAMA NEVER SHOULD BE PRESIDENT AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY:FIGURES COURTESY OF GLENN BECK’S “BROKE”:OBAMA’S FIRST BUDGET IN 2009, CALLED FOR $42,000,000,000,000 TRILLION OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING OVER THE NEXT DECADE. OBAMA PROPOSED THE GOVERNMENT BORROW MORE MONEY IN 10YRS. THAN IT EVER HAS IN THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF OUR COUNTRY IN 225 !!THE NEXT BUDGET, WHICH WE JUST SANK THIS SHIP TO HELL WITH THE PATH TO PROSPERITY, PROPOSED:* SPENDING $45 TRILLION* PUSH PUBLIC DEBT BEYOND 90% OF GDP, MORE THAN 2X CURRENT LEVEL * RAISE TAXES BY $3 TRILLION* RAISE TAXES ON SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS AND UPPER-INCOME TAXPAYERS BY $300,000 OVER 10YRS. (THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE IN YOUR STATE WHO LIKE ME, STARTED THEIR OWN BUSINESS OVER THE PAST 3YRS., ARE LIKE... THAT’S 30 GRAND IN TAXES PER YEAR... WHETHER YOUR BUSINESS EVEN MAKE 30 GRAND OR NOT!!!!) * BORROW 42 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR (THAT LEAVES MAYBE 8-10 CENTS, COMPLETELY BANKRUPTING THE DOLLAR AND STEALING THE TITHE)* ADD ADDITIONAL $74,000 OF DEBT PER HOUSEHOLD!! (RIGHT NOW WITH $14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, YOUR INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF THE DEBT IS $40,000+, WITH NO HOUSE OR CAR TO SHOW FOR IT AS IS, AND THEN HE WANTS YOU TO COUGH $110,000+ FOR HIS ENRICHMENT, NOT YOURS) IF YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT BEING A CHRISTIAN, I’M SURE YOU ARE NOW, AND THIS IS WHY I ABSOLUTELY HATE OBAMA: NOT BECAUSE HE ISN’T A CHRISTIAN, BUT BECAUSE HIS INTENTIONS ARE VERY SINISTER OF ENTIRELY WIPING OUT OUR COUNTRY.PROBABLY WHY THE PRESS FREAKED OUT OVER THE MOST RECENT WEIRDO GUEST(S) AT THE WHITE HOUSE: Obama Invites Controversial President Of Gabon To White House
Written by NewsOne Staff on June 9, 2011 3:47 pmClick for More Next Post
President Obama will be meeting with Ali Bongo Ondimba, the controversial president of Gabon who has been accused of human rights violations. In April 2011, Gabon was cited for “ritualistic killings,” “use of excessive force by police,” and “restrictions on privacy and press,” by the Department of State. Jack Blum, a consultant to the United Nations, says the invitation sends a bad message.
White House press secretary Jay Carney defended the President’s decision to invite the African leader, even though he has a “less than sterling” record.
“Gabon has voted in ways that we consider very helpful on issues like Cote d’Ivoire, Libya and Iran,” Carney said at a news briefing on Wednesday. “It has been an important ally in our efforts in those countries through the United Nations.”
Read more at NyDailyNews.com
Wed Jun 1, 2:49 pm ET
Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs
By Liz Goodwin
A slew of big-name former politicians are endorsing a report that says the war on drugs is not working and that drug enforcement policy needs to fundamentally change. The Global Commission on Drug Policy will urge a "paradigm shift" that emphasizes public health over criminalization tomorrow at a meeting in New York City,The Guardian reports.
Those backing the report include former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. Former elected leaders of Greece, Brazil and Colombia have also signed on. See the full list of backers here.
"What we have here is the greatest collection thus far of ex-presidents and prime ministers calling very clearly for decriminalization and experiments with legal regulation," Danny Kushlick, spokesman for the drug policy center Transform, told the Guardian. "It will be a watershed moment."
But, faced with the list of "formers" backing the new recommendation, The Lookout couldn't help but wonder: Where are all the current office-holders who think the drug war has been a failure?
Tom Angell, spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of former and current police officers against the criminalization of drugs, tells The Lookout he thinks sitting politicians will have to change their tune as American public opinion changes.
"I think as this debate continues to heat up and move forward you'll start to see more and more sitting elected officials endorsing fundamental reforms," he says. Even among LEAP's membership, most are retired law enforcement officers. Only a "handful" are active-duty cops, Angell says, in part because it's difficult for police officers to question the value of laws that they risk their lives to enforce every day.
Despite the political pitfalls of challenging drug policy, a few recent signs point to something of a bipartisan consensus forming on the issue. In April, an NAACP report that said states send too many young people to jail for non-violent drug offenses picked up surprising endorsements from former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who founded Americans for Tax Reform. The report said more than a quarter of the 2.3 million American prisoners are jailed for drug offenses, which bloats the system and eats up tax dollars. Christian talk show host Pat Robertson caused a stir in December when he endorsed on "The 700 Club" faith-based rehabilitation programs instead of jail time for drug use, and even appeared to support the legalization of marijuana. "I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong," he said. "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot--that kind of thing--it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people."
Public opinion polls show support is growing among Americans to legalize marijuana, but a majority still think the drug should be illegal. A greater share of Independents support its legalization than Democrats or Republicans.
The U.S. government has sent $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico and Central America to help fight the bloody war against the drug cartels. More than 35,000 people have died over the past four years in the drug-related violence. Drug cartels have turned to the use of narco-submarines and ultra-light aircraft to get their product to the U.S. market, in an effort to foil increased enforcement measures.
(Alleged members of Los Zetas drug cartel in February: Miguel Tovar/AP)
Other popular Yahoo! News stories:
• The New York Times denies hacking Goldman Sachs trader's email
• MSNBC's Bashir says Palin's bus tour 'could be in breach of federal law'
• Citing Madoff fraud lawyer wants divorce deal do-over
Top Stories - The Lookout
TEA PARTY STRATEGY ON HOW TO WIN FRIENDS:How To Win Friends And Influence Liberals
June 9, 2011 by Ben Crystal 
A FACEBOOK PAGE SET UP BY ANTHONY WEINER FANS
A year ago, this photo was posted on Facebook with the caption: "The first ever Weiner Caption Contest. I can't offer a prize but if you write the best caption, I'll call you and tell you and I'll announce it here."
Hey there, Democrats. It’s your pal, Ben. I want you to know I feel just awful about the way Representative Anthony Weiner not only lied about his misadventures on Twitter, but used your devotion against you. Weiner turned out every Democratic double-talking trick from Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton in an effort to hide his dalliances with dozens of women who he’s fairly certain were not still in junior high school. And most of you bought it. When Weiner claimed he was the real victim, you demanded justice. When Weiner told you he was hacked, you changed your passwords. When Weiner said it was a conservative conspiracy, you put on your tinfoil hats.
Let me use an old-neighborhood euphemism Weiner would recognize: Not for nothin’ — you got played.
But I’m not here to gloat. I have liberal friends who are beside themselves over Weiner’s amateur photography project. Liberals are fond of suggesting that conservatives are cruel. So I’m going to do something Weiner does only if you are female, hot and at least 18 (although he’s evidently flexible on proof of that last one): invite you to join us in the conservative ranks.
Think about it. This whole liberal thing isn’t working out all that well for you. President Barack Obama is as capable of dispensing his Presidential duties as I am of starting in place of Eli Manning next season. I’m fairly certain there’s a short in Vice President Joe Biden’s wiring. And now, your House of Representatives rising star has done a swan dive into the creepy end of the Internet.
Your party’s ideas are sillier than a little-watched cable network offering Lawrence O’Donnell an hour-long program. Obamacare seemed great, didn’t it? Resurrect Hillarycare and ram it down the nation’s throat. Too bad that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way. Are you sure these are the guys with whom you want to share a political foxhole?
Join the conservative movement. Imagine the joy of not having to be so damned indignant all the time. You never have to watch MSNBC and pretend you didn’t notice Ed Schultz has a severe personality disorder. You never have to listen to NPR and its parade of people who obviously talk with their eyes closed. No more pretending you’re not appalled when Obama tells you to cut back while his wife cavorts around some five-star resort in a dress that cost five figures.
If you’re a conservative, you can tell elected representatives who annoy you to “get stuffed.” When our guys disappoint us, we dump them faster than Larry Craig can tap his foot. We only begrudgingly showed up for Senator John McCain, and even then only because we liked Sarah Palin — and the alternative was worse than being forced to watch four years of Chris Matthews sneering like a crack-addled movie villain.
And you will be well protected. As long as you’re not a felon or Dailykos.com-stupid, we will encourage you to get a firearm. Let me amend that. I’ve seen how some of you throw a football. We will handle the weapons. Most of us own them, and we can shoot straight. Plus, most of the military is on our side — and soldiers really can shoot straight.
And conservative food is better. You’ve sworn off animal flesh because you heard California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown likes vegetarians. I’m sure that vegan diet is really, really healthy, but have you smelled Moonbeam? Step into Smith and Wollensky the next time you get a chance and tell me you’re sticking with your… er… what is that, a dirt sandwich?
But wait, there’s more! Nothing against home brewers, but imagine a pint of something that doesn’t involve ¼ inch of beer-flavored mud at the bottom of the glass. And making that “wine” must be fun. I have two fingers of single malt that says you would prefer a wingback chair, some old amber liquor over ice and an Ashton 8-9-8. That’s right: We get to smoke, too. And our smoke doesn’t always involve the fear of Drug Enforcement Administration assault teams. And a growing number of us think the DEA should concern itself with substances that involve worse outcomes than buying out the local Papa John’s.
No more kowtowing to tin-pot dictators and Islamofascist psychopaths. No more shovel-ready projects. No more racist Attorneys General. No more class warfare as a substitute for meaningful tax policy. No more dues to support union thugs. No more protecting foreign-oil godfathers. No more bald-faced hypocrisy.
At the very least, our women are all older than 18.
Facebook Myths Exposed
79
By SueShepard
See all 5 photos
Source: morgue
Who's Fooling Who on Facebook?
There is a wonderful place where old friendships reunite and new ones blossom. A place where everyone gets along and off in the distance you can see the sunshine and roses as vividly as your own image in the 32 profile pictures that you took yourself. Sounds too good to be true? It is. Here you will find some general myths that most of us have about this utopia we call Facebook.
Myth: Every single person whoever went to my high school, regardless of the year they graduated, finds me fascinating. In the first few months, it was a daily flood of invites that made you feel like a celebrity of sorts. Each morning, after brushing my long shiny locks and the bluebirds helped me on with my robe, I would float down the stairs with glee waiting to see who else wanted to be a part of my glamorous life. We all have glamorous lives inFacebookland, by the way.
Reality: Really? You want to be my friend after 20 years? Where were you when I needed someone's paper to look on for that algebra class I had to take twice? Or when the schoolyard bully wanted to use my face as a portable punching bag? They invited you simply because they want their friends list number to increase.
Source: Photobucket
Myth: Everyone else but me in Facebookland has a glamorous life. Look at all of their pictures at the ballgames, weddings and sitting in front of the fire with their matching outfits drinking wine. I see a lot of wine. It has to be true if there's wine.
Reality: Don't be so easily fooled. That picture you saw of 'Girls' Night Out' ended in Missy puking in the bushes in front of T.G.I. Friday's and her husband made her cook the family breakfast from scratch the next morning. Oh and the one of little Johnny sliding into home for the game winning point...dad got fired as the Little League coach three weeks later for bribing the umps. Pictures say a thousand words, but they hide a million more.
Myth: My friends list number went down. Oh well. Who cares?
Reality: OMG! What happened? Where am I? I need air! I will search for the next three hours if I have to in order to figure out who unfriended me, then once I find out who you are, I will spend another two hours checking to see if you are still friends with any of my friends. I will find out who you are.
Source: Photobucket
Source: Photobucket
Myth: I don't really care about how many comments or 'likes' I receive on my status posts. I am sure people are busy and losing interest a bit in the whole thing.
Reality: Yes I do! If I don't have more than 2 comments within an hour, I am frantically hitting the refresh button, checking power cords, calling the cable company to see if there are any connection problems...anything to justify this unfathomable concept that people aren't interested in me anymore.
Myth: It's perfectly Ok if I have a bottle of wine while spending time on Facebook.
Reality: It is never, never OK. Did I say never? Good Lord, avoid this little fun activity by all means. Sure, it may start out all fun and games, then I'd say about half way through the bottle, things will start to resemble Woodstock. You will invite people to be your friend who you do not know, then give them directions to your house because you have now found your soul mate. You will send your mother a hate filled message because she didn't let you go see New Kids on The Block back in the 80's when they were actually 'new' and 'kids'. You will post Youtube videos of every song that you liked from the time you were four years old. It just is never OK.
Source: Photobucket
I have to admit that I, too, have a Facebook account and have been drawn into some of these myths. I won't reveal which ones. But whether or not we are fooling ourselves or being fooled by others, I hope none of us are taking this fantasy land too seriously.
I will now be heading over there to update my status to "Great Night! Worked Out, Had a Wonderful Family Dinner and Quality Time with my Honey!". Reality: "Tonight Sucked. Walked the Garbage to the Curb, Brought Home Take Out and Wrote this Article while 'Honey' was Sleeping on the Couch."
*Facebook Addiction: The Life & Times of Social Networking Addicts
Amazon Price: $9.26
List Price: $9.95
*Facebook Friends
Amazon Price: $20.00
VOTE UPVOTE DOWNSHAREPRINTFLAG
Was this Hub ...?
IS SARAH PALIN-MICHELE BACHMANN BEEF REAL OR IMAGINED PRESS? WHAT IS IT ABOUT SARAH PALIN THAT THE MEDIA FINDS SO DISSABLE ???Tags: The Palin Page | 2012 President Race | 2012 GOP Primary | Sarah Palin | Michele Bachmann | Ed RollinsBachmann Campaign Manager Rollins Goes After Palin
Thursday, 09 Jun 2011 10:27 AM
By Dan Weil
The alliance between likely Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and possible candidate Sarah Palin appears to be fraying.
And it's being fueled largely by Bachmann's new campaign manager, Ed Rollins. On Tuesday, veteran Republican strategist Rollins took some shots at Palin. “Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years,” he said in an interview on Fox News Radio.
“She got the vice-presidential thing handed to her. She didn’t go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance. She gave up her governorship.”
Bachmann is expected to launch her campaign this month in Iowa, while Palin still is mulling her options. Both have strong support from conservatives.
In public, the two remain allies, with the friendship forged when former Alaska Gov. Palin went to Minnesota to campaign for the congresswoman in her difficult re-election bid last year.
Although that appearance was a success, there were disagreements over logistics at the finish, according to Politico. And ever since, Palin has voiced “disdain” for Bachmann privately, a Palin associate told the news service. This source says that many Palin supporters view Bachmann as simply riding on Palin’s coattails.
Palin’s PAC treasurer, Tim Crawford, told Politico that the rumors of Palin holding a grudge against Bachmann are “not true whatsoever,” pointing out that “Michele was the first person Sarah campaigned for in the 2010 cycle.”
As for Bachmann, she’s fine with Palin. Two people close to her tell Politico that she expresses as much affection for Palin in private as she does in public. But they say Bachmann has never called the two close.
When CBS asked Bachmann last month whether she had consulted with Palin about running for president, Bachmann said that would be great, but said jokingly, “I don’t have her cellphone number.”
One thing is for sure: Palin's and Bachmann’s aides are going at it.
Rollins went on Tuesday to slam Palin. “Michele Bachmann and others [have] worked hard,” he said. “She has been a leader of the Tea Party which is a very important element here, she has been an attorney, she has done important things with family values.”
Rollins reiterated those thoughts in an interview with Politico. Bachmann will “be so much more substantive,” he said. “People are going to say, ‘I gotta make a choice and go with the intelligent woman who’s every bit as attractive.’ ”
Then on Wednesday, Palin’s chief of staff, Michael Glassner, fought back. “Beltway political strategist Ed Rollins has a long, long track record of taking high profile jobs and promptly sticking his foot in his mouth,” he said in a statement.
"To no one's surprise he has done it again, while also fueling a contrived narrative about the presidential race by the mainstream media. One would expect that his woodshed moment is coming and that a retraction will be issued soon."
In an interview on CNN Wednesday, Rollins didn’t apologize, but he did soften his words a bit. “I don’t think Palin runs, and if she does, we will deal with it,” he said. “There obviously is a trend in the media to link them. In the long run we want Palin and her people as our allies.”
Bachmann may gain an advantage in distancing herself from Palin, but it could instead be a blunder, given Palin’s strong popularity with conservatives. The Minnesotan will certainly seek the Alaskan’s endorsement if Palin decides not to run.
Some political heavies say Rollins’ comments were a mistake. “I think it is ill advised,” said Republican strategist Curt Anderson. He suggests that Rollins may just have been speaking off the top of his head rather than executing a planned strategy. “Why would you attack a barracuda?”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Bachmann Campaign Manager Rollins Goes After Palin
Friend: Sarah Palin Is Ignoring Elisabeth Hasselbeck 151 Comments By Rob Shuter Posted Jun 8th 2011 09:08AM 156518937
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who once dutifully campaigned alongside Sarah Palin during her run for higher office in 2008, is no longer feeling the love for the likely presidential candidate, in face, a close friend of the 'View' star reveals the two haven't spoken in months.
"I think Elisabeth is a good friend. She remembers birthdays and even with a busy schedule always takes time to stay in touch with her girlfriends," a pal tells me. "But Sarah has let her down. Elisabeth has reached out to her several times but she never responds."
It's gotten so grating on Elisabeth that, according to my source, "she has stopped trying all together and doesn't care who knows."
Elisabeth recently accused Sarah of "manipulating" the media to draw attention away from the more-serious Mitt Romney, and mocked her ex-friend's bus tour as another attempt to dominate the headlines. Sarah's decision to roll through New Hampshire on the day Mitt announced his run for the White House clearly annoyed the daytime star. "If I had termites in my house, I'd get someone in there who could deal with it," Hasselbeck said on 'The View.' "Mitt Romney, right now, his specialty is the economy. I'd have him in there. Here's why we're not hearing it: because Sarah Palin's on a bus, and right now she's manipulating, in terms of media attention."Before that, Elisabeth also condemned Sarah's "crosshairs" imagery on a fundraising website, calling them "despicable" after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, one of her 'targets' in the 2010 campaign, was shot during a voter meet-and-greet. "Elisabeth feels used by Sarah," an insider tells me. "When she needed her, she was all over Elisabeth and now she treats her like a stranger.
It's sad."
TIME FOR SOME COMMENTARY:
- ELISABETH HASSELBECK’S FIRST MISTAKE IS BEING ON “THE VIEW” AND LETTING WHOOPI GOLDBERG PAINT HER AS WHITE BREAD SUNBEAM LADY, ESPECIALLY ON POLITICS, AND HASSELBECK’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES HAVE MORE HOLES THAN GIFFORD’S HEAD.
- HER SECOND MISTAKE WAS SUPPORTING HUCAKBEE, WHO HAS A TERRIBLE PARDON RECORD, AND...
- HER THIRD MISTAKE IS SUPPORTING MITT ROMNEY, WHO FAILED HIS STATE BY INSTATING OBAMACARE, THAT 31 OTHER STATES DON’T WANT AND HAVE FILED LAWSUITS OVER.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK IS LIKE CONSERVATIVE LITE DRINK: WHEN YOU REALLY WANT A SODA AND ARE FORCED TO DRINK A DIET DRINK, THAT IS THE TASTE THAT SHE LEAVES IN YOUR MOUTH... NOTHING BUT ALL THE FLAVOR OF FAKE POLITICS. ELISABETH HASSELBECK MISSED HER CHANCE IN THE POLITICAL AREANA BECAUSE SHE FELL OFF THAT TURNIP TRUCK A LONG TIME AGO, WHICH IS WHY SHE IS STUCK BEING WHIPPING POST ON “THE VIEW”, WHY I DON’T WATCH THE SH-T ANYWAY. A “NEWTINY”, AS COINED BY JAKE TAPPER, ERUPTS -- GA TEA PARTY MEMBERS PART WAYS WITH NEWT’S HEADQUARTERS BEING IN ATLANTA AS HIS STAFF RESIGNS FROM THEIR POSTS....
*June 9th, 201105:17 PM ETBREAKING: Gingrich top aides abandon campaign*
Washington (CNN) – At least seven members of Newt Gingrich's senior campaign staff resigned Thursday, sources told CNN, but the Republican presidential candidate pledged he would start his campaign "anew."In addition, one of his national campaign co-chairs defected Thursday to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's presidential campaign, according to a Pawlenty campaign release. Former Gov. Sonny Perdue of Gingrich's home state of Georgia moved over to the competing campaign.The staff resignations included his campaign manager Rob Johnson and long-time Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler. Also departing are Gingrich strategists Dave Carney and Sam Dawson. Consultants Katon Dawson, who is based in South Carolina, Craig Schoenfeld, who is based in Iowa, and Scott Rials, who is based in Georgia, have left as well as six staff members in Iowa and Perdue.Gingrich held a meeting Thursday with Johnson and Dawson to discuss disagreements between the candidate and his staff. Tyler said the discussion was about "Newt as a candidate and control of the campaign and scheduling."The aides resigned when an agreement was not reached, but Tyler said aides are "always hopeful for a mutually agreeable path forward."But when a campaign and a candidate do not see eye to eye "they've got to part ways," Tyler told CNN."The professional team came to the realization that the direction of the campaign they sought and Newt's vision for the campaign were incompatible," Carney told CNN.Gingrich responded to the events on his Facebook page Thursday."I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring. The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles," Gingrich wrote.An aide told CNN that "Newt will participate in Monday's debate in New Hampshire as originally planned."CNN, WMUR and the New Hampshire Union Leader are sponsoring a GOP presidential debate Monday in Manchester.Gingrich was absent from the campaign trail for about two weeks recently because of a "planned vacation" with his wife, Callista. He returned with a campaign stop Wednesday in Hudson, New Hampshire.Tyler said the "vacation was not helpful."And Craig Schoenfeld, former Iowa Executive Director for Newt 2012, who confirmed all six of Gingrich's paid staff members in Iowa resigned, said "the timing was unfortunate but it's not directly related to his vacation." They already had the sense before the vacation that Gingrich wasn't committed to spending the time in Iowa that it takes to win."Bottom line is there was a difference of opinion in how we saw a path to success and victory," Schoenfeld said.The difference of opinion centered on "commitment of securing and deploying campaign resources and commitment of candidate time to the campaign trail.""I knew what it was going to take to be successful in Iowa, the New Hampshire team knew what it was going to take to be successful in New Hampshire, the South Carolina team knew what it was going to take to be successful in South Carolina," Schoenfeld said. "As a team we were all in unison on that approach," but the candidate they were working for was not.His decision was made after a series of meetings between the national staff about where, what, who, when and how to approach the rest of the campaign. Schoenfeld was not a part of those meetings, but the message was conveyed to the state directors after those meetings that the candidate had a different type of campaign in mind.Schoenfeld said he has not been approached by any other campaign, and as far as he knows none of his staff has either. When Newt's national campaign staff told him about their strategic differences with the candidate, they did not ask him to sign on with another candidate instead.One of the Gingrich staffers who resigned said it wasn't a personal issue, but there was a big question about his ability to raise money and the candidate's commitment to early voting states particularly Iowa."There is a shortage of money," the staffer said. "It is a tough day and a tough world out here in the fundraising and political arena."The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Gingrich didn't make the "time to go and shake hands with voters."The departures of Johnson and Carney are already fueling speculation about a potential candidacy by Texas Gov. Rick Perry.Perry recently said he plans to consider a Republican presidential bid after the Texas legislative session concludes, and both Carney and Johnson are two of the governor's top political advisers. Their resignation from the Gingrich campaign would free them up to assist Perry if he decides to run.Despite the 2012 chatter, Perry's office insists that the governor has no current plans to run for president.Perdue, who joined Team Pawlenty Thursday, is very close to Pawlenty's campaign manager, Nick Ayers, who ran Perdue's gubernatorial campaign."Tim Pawlenty is a great man, he was a phenomenal governor, and he is the person I now believe stands the greatest chance of defeating President Obama," Perdue said in a statement. "He is the only candidate who has laid out a real plan to grow the American economy, and his track record in Minnesota is proof he's the right man for the job."The former House Speaker announced his bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination on May 11.He is best known for engineering the Contract with America and leading the Republicans' surge to power in Congress in 1994 but his reputation took a hit in 1995, when a budget standoff in the House led to a temporary shutdown of parts of the federal government. Republicans didn't fare well in the 1998 elections, and Gingrich stepped down.– CNN's Mark Preston, Peter Hamby, John King, Kevin Bohn and Adam Aigner-Treworgy contributed to this report.
@newtgingrich I just heard your quote "right wing social engineering is no different than left wing social engineering" so what's your plan?
@newtgingrich if you call Tiffany's&a cruise to Greece a pre-emptive present taxpayers would foot the bill for as President you're mistaken.
@newtgingrich people scrutinize your private life as a politician for they perceive it as micro to the macro as indicative of you in Office.
@newtgingrich maybe today's announcement in GA that we are done with Sue Everhart's Old Hat Republican tactics and dirty tricks did you in.
@newtgingrich we can't stack chips w/you at the table, when you think Tea Party has no right to play in political circle with Repubs.
@newtgingrich additionally, we feel the same way about Sue Everhart, Debbie Dooley, and others in the GA GOP -------------- :P
@newtgingrich we will take our $ and endorsements elsewhere, because we put our $ where our mouth is not OUR HANDS IN TAXPAYERS POCKETS!!!!
@newtgingrich to a true Conservative, your lavish gifts SCREAM DEBT, DEBT, DEBT, like you are Obama in white face and a red monkey suit.
by 2011teapartyJune 09, 2011Rapper Calls Obama 'Biggest Terrorist'
Fire it up
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069803-10391715.html
Share
By Marcus Riley, NBC Chicago
Lupe Fiasco called out President Barack Obama this week, calling his fellow Chicagoan "the biggest terrorist."
The comments came in an interview with CBS News Tuesday while discussing the political content of his music.
"My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."
SEE MORE VIDEOS AT NBCCHICAGO.COM
@ @B4INTeaParty you mean Democrats are defending Weiner's weiner??!! Naw, these are the same ones defending Obama.... conincidence???THE POWER OF THE PEN HAS NOW BECOME THE POWER OF THE KEYBOARD....Bachmann now follows “The Synthesis” and postings:MicheleBachmann @MicheleBachmann requested to follow you (@2011teaparty).
MicheleBachmann @MicheleBachmann requested to follow you (@2011teaparty).
MicheleBachmannMicheleBachmann
Happy to be serving MN-06 for a 3rd term.
749
Tweets
14,671
Following
50,189
Followers
You follow 10+ users who follow @MicheleBachmann, including:
@DeDreddedOne @TheTeaParty_net @rebeccadiserio
OBAMA CAN’T EVEN DEAL DIPLOMATICALLY WITH AMERICAN PUBLIC, LET ALONE OTHER COUNTRIES:OBAMA ALREADY RAMPING UP TIME-SENSITIVE CENSORSHIP AND INTERNET CONTROLS, WHERE YOU HAVE TO WRITE GOOGLE, TWITTER, FACEBOOK OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CONTEST YOUR TIMELY RELEASE OF MATERIAL AND OPINIONS: "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821 
In our 576th issue:UPDATESMINILINKSANNOUNCEMENTSReject the PROTECT IP ActThe dangerous PROTECT IP Internet censorship bill (or PIPA) seeks to grant the government new powers to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users' attempts to reach websites' URLs, all in the name of stopping websites "dedicated to infringing activities." Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement, but Internet rights advocates know that PIPA would invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation. Send an email now to urge legislators in Congress to reject this dangerous bill! Send an email now to urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!Hundreds Stand up for Online Anonymity in EFF's Tor ChallengeLess than a week ago, EFF launched a campaign to encourage volunteers to run Tor relays. Tor is software that helps users mask their IP addresses; it's a vital tool for investigative journalists, whistle-blowers and humanitarian aid workers across the globe. Tor relies on a network of volunteer computers helping to route traffic in order to function - which means regular users can contribute.When EFF launched the Tor Challenge, we hoped to add 100 new Tor nodes to the network - a small but important step in protecting online anonymity. We were thrilled to see over 100 new relays were launched within the first twenty-four hours of our campaign. We increased our goal to 250 - and two days later we surpassed that goal. Currently over 300 new relays have been created as part of our Tor Challenge. "Every relay makes a difference to Tor in terms of speed and security. We thank EFF for their efforts to help more people protect their privacy, anonymity, and freedom of expression online," Karen Reilly of the Tor Project.Ready to join EFF in defending online privacy? Visit EFF's Tor Challenge to find out how.U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls Upon States to Protect Anonymous Speakers OnlineOn June 3, EFF will begin live coverage of a critical discussion about online freedom of expression held by the U.N Human Rights Council during its session in Geneva. The meeting will include the introduction of a landmark report by United Nations Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue that advocates safeguards for free expression online including privacy and anonymity. Anonymity protects dissent by eliminating fear of reprisals and breaking the silence of self-censorship. It also plays a crucial role in environments hostile to journalism. Stay tuned to the Deeplinks blog for EFF's coverage of the fight for anonymity at the U.N.Big Media Tramples On Constitutional Rights in CaliforniaA bill that just passed Calfiornia's State Senate would authorize law enforcement to search optical disc manufacturing plants without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion. This bill would grant sweeping new powers to law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of California businesses. For more than 200 years, law enforcement officers have been able to comply with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and still do their job fighting crime. So why would California bend these rules when it comes to copyright enforcement?EFF UpdatesEFF Members-Only Speakeasy: SeattleJoin Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann for a drink on Thursday, June 16, in Seattle! EFF's Speakeasy events are free, informal gatherings that give you a chance to mingle with local members and meet the people behind the world's leading digital civil liberties organization.Twitter, Free Speech, Super-Injunctions and the Streisand EffectDespite a super injunction in place to keep his name and the story of his extra-marital affair out of the tabloids, a British footballer has found that where there’s the Internet, there’s a way...for the story to get out, that is. The recent super injunction highlighted the UK's need for intermediary protections like those offered under U.S. law.EFF Files Petition Opposing Proposed AT&T/T-Mobile MergerEFF filed a petition with the Department of Justice and the FCC asking the administration to deny AT&T Inc.’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA, based on concerns about the risk of non-neutral behavior as a result of decreased competition."Who Has Your Back" In Depth: Fighting For Users' Privacy Rights in CourtContinuing EFF's series related to our Who Has Your Back? campaign, we explore how we rate companies that go to court to fight for their users' privacy interests in response to government demands for information.miniLinksSyrian Internet ShutdownAccording to Renesys, approximately two-thirds of all Syrian networks became unreachable from the global Internet on Friday of last week. Over the course of roughly half an hour, the routes to 40 of 59 networks were withdrawn from the global routing table.Putting Fair Use ForwardTwo professors at American University are on a mission to show how, under fair use, many scholars can use copyrighted material without breaking the law, even if they never ask the rights holders and even if they hope to profit from their resulting academic books.Develop for Privacy ChallengeThe deadline is fast approaching to submit your privacy-enhancing mobile app. Check out the contest today.AdministriviaISSN 1062-9424 EFFector is a publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110-1914 USA +1 415 436 9333 +1 415 436 9993 (fax)eff.org Editor: Rainey Reitman, Activist editor@eff.org Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.orgGeneral EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries: information@eff.orgReproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission.Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually at will.Back issues of EFFectorChange your email address This newsletter is printed from 100% recycled electrons.EFF appreciates your support and respects your privacy. Privacy Policy. Unsubscribe or change your subscription preferencesTHE BELL TELLS FOR YOU
OP/ED
61KShare
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
Jun. 7 2011 - 2:04 pm | 806,972 views | 2 recommendations | 107 comments
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
More from contributor Larry Bell
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
Pages: 1 2 3
Previous Post:The New Military War Against Climate Change
by 2011teapartyAnother “WTF” Obama Foreign Policy Momenthttp://fb.me/H9G3pDgB@ @SarahPalinUSA hey you have so many friends I can't like or comment on your posts, so it makes exchanges difficult between us.@SarahPalinUSA Why is it Obama works so hard to give things to our enemies, while asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?
@SarahPalinUSA I will use this quote in "The Synthesis" but you must answer that question, for it is the very reason you're not V.P. now.Another “WTF” Obama Foreign Policy Moment
by Sarah Palin on Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 7:16am
As Governor I fought the Obama Administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska. So imagine how appalled and surprised I was to read this article by former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, appropriately titled “Giving Away the Farm,” concerning President Obama’s latest bizarre actions relating to missile defense.
President Obama wants to give Russia our missile defense secrets because he believes that we can buy their friendship and cooperation with this taxpayer-funded gift. But giving military secrets and technologies to a rival or competitor like Russia is just plain dumb. You can’t buy off Russia. And giving them advanced military technology will not create stability. What happens if Russia gives this technology (or sells it!) to other countries like Iran or China? After all, as Woolsey points out, Russia helped Iran with its missile and nuclear programs. Or what happens if an even more hardline leader comes to power in the Kremlin?
We tried buying off the Kremlin with technologies in the 1970s. That policy was a component of “detente,” and the hope was that if we would share our technologies with them, they would become more peaceful. Things, of course, didn’t work out that way. The Kremlin took western technologies and embarked on a massive military building program. History teaches that peace comes from American military strength. And a central component of that has always been technological superiority. Why would President Obama even dream of giving this away?
Members of Congress saw how foolish President Obama’s gambit was, so they put a section in the defense appropriation bill that specifically forbids the federal government from spending money to share these technologies with the Kremlin. President Obama actually threatened to veto the defense appropriation bill over this section of the law! Fortunately, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, a whopping 322 to 96. Attention now turns to the Senate.
Why is it that President Obama seems to work so hard to give things to our enemies, while at the same time asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?
During these tough economic times when we are facing massive deficits and a competitive global economy, does President Obama really want to give away technologies that the American taxpayer paid lots of money to develop? Giving away our missile defense secrets won’t make us safer. What it will do is create a situation where we are facing an arms race with ourselves. Russia gets access to our technologies, and we are forced to spend even more money because of the need to stay ahead. Does this make sense to you? Me neither. File this under “WTF”.
- Sarah Palin
Share
- 11 people like this.
Issa calls hearing on Justice Department possibly obstructing justice
- Posted by Asst Natl Dir Mellie B on June 8, 2011 at 4:05pm in Obama Admin & the Democratic Majority
- View Discussions
Published: 5:26 PM 06/07/2011 | Updated: 12:12 AM 06/08/2011
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
California Republican Darrell Issa has called a hearing to look at the possibility that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may be committing obstruction of justice by ignoring a subpoena.
On April 1, Issa, House Oversight Committee chairman, subpoenaed all documents pertaining to two Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) programs, Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious.
Specifically, Issa was looking for documents and communications “relating to the genesis” of the programs and any information related to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/issa-calls-hearing-on-justice-dep...
For those of you not familiar with Project Gunrunner. Here is a piece written by Michelle Malkin over at The National Review:
March 30, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Project Gunrunner
Obama’s stimulus-funded border nightmare
Buried in Barack Obama’s failed trillion-dollar stimulus program was a $10 million bloody border racket that has now cost American lives. This goes far beyond the usual waste, fraud and abuse underwritten by progressive profligacy. It’s bloodstained government malfeasance overseen by anti-gun ideologues — and now anti-gun ideologue Attorney General Eric Holder will “investigate.”
Welcome to Project Gunrunner. Prepare for another Justice Department whitewash.
finish reading this article here
Tags: Barack, Darrell, Department, Eric, Fast, Furious, Gunrunner, Holder, Issa, Justice
ShareTwitterFacebook
▶ Reply to This
Feds arrest 16 in cocaine trafficking, money laundering bust
By Christopher Seward
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Federal authorities say they have arrested 16 suspects and dismantled a major Mexican drug trafficking ring operating out of metro Atlanta.
More Atlanta/Fulton news »
U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said alleged drug traffickers and money launderers were arrested early Wednesday as part of the Drug Enforcement Administration's three-year "Operation G-60″ investigation. She said more than $7 million worth of cocaine and more than $ 1 million in "dirty drug money" was confiscated.
“Operation G-60 has dealt a severe blow to the Mexican drug cartels operating in the metro Atlanta area," Yates said.
"These traffickers were clearly working under the direction of Mexican drug cartel leadership," said John S. Comer, acting special agent in charge of the DEA Atlanta Field Division. " The substances that they distributed clearly destroyed lives."
The federal charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison and a fine of up to $4 million.
Agents seized 312 kilograms of cocaine, about 1,525 kilograms of marijuana and more than $1.5 million in drug money. Wednesday's arrests were part of a criminal indictment handed down by a federal grand jury on May 11 in which 32 individuals were charged for their participation in various drug-related criminal offenses, including conspiring and possessing with intent to distribute at least 5 kilograms of cocaine and at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, as well as related money laundering charges.
Yates said the trafficking ring consisted of several “cells” in the Atlanta area. Some of those arrested allegedly were responsible for transporting drugs and drug money, and maintaining “stash houses” and vehicles used by the organization in metro Atlanta.
The suspects arrested included Marvin Edleman Rodas-Perez, 39 of Norcross; Fatima Vasquez, 24, of Lawrenceville; Jose Valencia, 34, of Stockbridge; Martin Ayala-Casteneda, 34, of College Park; Jose Vargas, 29, of Morrow; Jose Sanchez-Valencia, 22, of Stockbridge; Geovany Martinez-Vargas, 23, of Stockbridge; Sonia Sanchez, 34, of Atlanta; Carmen Barbosa Mendoza, 33, of Gwinnett County; Tomar Shaw, 32, of Fairburn; David Sanchez, 31, of Johns Creek; Juan Castinanda, 25, of Johns Creek; Rudy Valencia, 27, of Johns Creek; Roberto Lopez-Martinez, 28, of Atlanta; Wilson Tejada, 30, of New York, NY; and Maria Del Rosario Diaz-Garcia, 28. No city was given for Diaz-Garcia.
HONORABLE MENTION:
Civil Rights Leader Clara Luper Dies
Luper Helped Spark Fight For Rights In Oklahoma
POSTED: 4:52 am CDT June 9, 2011
UPDATED: 5:01 am CDT June 9, 2011
Email 
Print
Comments
(1)
*
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Clara Luper, a pioneer of civil rights in Oklahoma, died Wednesday night in Oklahoma City, according to friends.
Luper, a retired schoolteacher, led a sit-in movement in downtown Oklahoma City in the late 1950s. Luper was an advocate of non-violent activism throughout her life.
Luper remained an active part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
There's a scholarship named in her honor at Oklahoma City University.
Funeral services are pending.
CIVIL RIGHTS OF OLD, LIKE SHARING FOUNTAINS AND BATHROOMS NOW MOLTS INTO MORE SILLINESS UNDER OBAMB’S FLAGRANT SUPPORT OF LGBT RIGHTS ABOVE COMMON SENSE. OBAMA WANTS TO CHANGE HOW YOU EVEN GO TO THE BATHROOM!!http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redmassgroup.com%2Fdiary%2F12146%2Fbathroom-bill-get-another-hearing-on-beacon-hill&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFMfdCcBTVqMZzUpNQvX0KaOo47Xw
THIS WEEK’S DISHONORABLE MENTIONS GO TO:
Flo Rida Busted for DUI In Super-EXPENSIVE Car
11 minutes ago by TMZ Staff
Rapper Flo Rida -- the guy behind the smash hit, "Low" -- was busted for drunk driving in Miami Beachthis morning in one of the most expensive cars in the planet!!!!
Law enforcement sources say ... Flo Rida was driving around in his red and black Bugatti -- valued around $1.7 million -- when cops observed the rapper swerving in his lane and pulled him over around 3:30 AM.
During the stop, cops detected the odor of alcohol -- so Flo was given a field sobriety test ... and didn't perform very well.
Flo -- real name Tramar Dillard -- was arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to a nearby station where he is currently being booked. Sources tell us Flo's blood alcohol level was more than double the legal limit.
Story developing ...
TO FINISH READING THE BLOG, GO TO: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HjzTDFlhfE2PTumdaH0iX9vfb3eA3ywtODiwdDtMTys/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
Since there are many parallels between ancient child sacrifice and modern abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that the attitude of our unchanging God towards abortion today is similar to His attitude towards child sacrifice in the past. What then can we rationally surmise is God's judgment regarding the practice of abortion both among Christians and those who are not His people?
Like child sacrifice in ancient Israel, the practice of abortion by Christians is spiritual prostitution to an idol, defiles God's sanctuary and profanes His holy name. God alone is the Author of life and it is not the creature's prerogative to question the Creator's wisdom in bringing to life a fellow human being at conception. Whenever men disregard their Creator's wise judgment by destroying His innocent creation, they are serving another god. They are, in fact, spiritually prostituting themselves to the idolatrous self whom they believe is wiser in its value judgments. Some values which are put forward to justify abortion are clearly idolatrous, e.g., the mother's right to choose, which is placed at the top of the pyramid of values by those who call themselves pro-choice. Other idolatrous values are more subtle, e.g., empathy for a mother's suffering in the midst of the crisis arising from an unwanted pregnancy or concern for the quality of life of a defective fetus. Both of these later values are good in themselves but become idolatrous when they abrogate the Creator's wise judgment in creating human life. It is not as though God fails to realize in creating some human beings that they may become a source of conflict in an unplanned conception or that a handicapped person will indeed face difficulties.
Whenever Christians disregard the Creator's true value judgments, they dethrone God and by their sin defile the temple in which He dwells, the temple of their own body (see I Corinthians 6:19). Dethroned and defiled by the idolatrous sin of abortion, God threatens to abandon the wayward Christian unless there is repentance. For God will not dwell in a temple in which another god is enthroned and a sanctuary polluted by sin. And the Christian who approves of or participates in the sin of abortion not only affects himself but he profanes God's holy name. People intuitively know that a man's attitude and behavior reflect his values. The Christian claims that God's authoritative Word determines his values. If a Christian then speaks or acts in away that is contrary to that Word, he brings dishonor to God's name. For to those who do not know God, the Christian is their chief witness to the Word of God. And the Christian who approves of or participates in the practice of abortion is testifying to the world that his God condones the practice. He is in reality bearing false witness, for by his attitude and behavior he infers that the Creator consents to His creatures destroying innocent fellow creatures. This false witness actually implies through his testimony that God is at odds with Himself. For in creating a human being God has clearly judged it to be of value. If God approved of abortion, He would be essentially saying that his value judgments are sometimes wrong.
Many Christians who accept or take part in the practice of abortion have not made a conscious decision to sin and bring dishonor to God by condoning idolatrous values. Regardless of the motive, however, these Christians are unacceptably serving God. Indeed God hates the detestable sin of abortion. For not only is abortion a sin against God and His innocent creation but it is a sin against the family and community as well. Scripture throughout teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord and that loving nurture is the godly response of parents toward their offspring. Abortion is the rejection of the God-given role to parent His creation. For an unmarried woman unable to cope with the doubly difficult role of single parenting, the child may be God's gift through her to a barren couple within the community. Whether God's blessing is received and lovingly nurtured by the biologic parents or given to adoptive parents, the birth of a child is a blessing to the family and community.
Often abortion is the evil solution to the consequences of a sexual sin. Whether a pregnancy results from fornication or adultery, where the mother is a guilty participant in the sin, or a pregnancy results from rape or incest, where the mother usually is the guiltless victim of another's sin, abortion is an ungodly solution. For the Sovereign Redeemer is able to bring about good where there was evil. A new creation resulting from a sexual sin is an extraordinary witness to this redemptive truth.
Sadly many Christians refuse to completely submit to the Lordship of the Creator and fail to appreciate the redemptive power of their God to save man from the full consequences of sin. The defective fetus is the victim of that original sin which resulted in the fall of all creation. A mother may be the victim of her own or another's sexual sin or the victim of corporate societal sin, e.g., unjust poverty. In all of these situations abortion has no redeeming character; for God never deals with sin or its consequences by countering it with sin but with righteousness. The unhealthy child should be loved and cared for more not less because of its weakness. The pregnant woman should be counseled to do what is right and given assistance in every possible way to support a godly decision to nurture in her body God's creation during its first nine months of life. Christians must always affirm, both by word and deed, the sovereignty of the Creator and recognize His power to righteously redeem mankind from the results of sin.
Up to this point we have been trying to discover God's attitude towards abortion among Christians, based on Scripture's testimony of His attitude towards child sacrifice among the Israelites. We now turn to God's judgment regarding abortion among those who are not Christians and the Christian response to the practice among them.
As previously noted in the theocratic nation of Israel, some non-Israelite customs were tolerated and some, like child sacrifice, were not. Today God's people in the United States do not live in a theocracy; rather, they live in a democratic state. As such, Christians must determine, based on the principles of God's law, when they should become actively involved in the democratic process to restrict the behavior of some individuals in the interest of other individuals and society-at-large and when they should tolerate different values and customs. Abortion is clearly a practice which is intolerable and must be restrained by the state. For abortion is the denial of the inalienable God-given right to life" of an innocent human being and it is an attack at the very foundation of our society, i.e., the family and community. Even many of those who are not Christians acknowledge that abortion is wrong. For God's law is written on the hearts of men and women to which their conscience bears witness (see Romans 2:14). Others have suppressed God's truth by substituting their own self-serving idolatrous values. The truth of God's power and divinity have been revealed in creation (see Romans 1:18ff). But men and women have suppressed this truth and their rejection of this revelation of God is clearly evident in the sin of abortion. For scarcely is the power and divinity of God more clearly seen than in His creative power bringing to life each human being, everyone made in His own divine image (see Genesis 1:27). No man-made technology has the power to create life, much less a human life stamped with the divine imprimatur. Rather, through the medical technology of abortion mankind rebels against the creative power of the Almighty by destroying the divine image-bearers. No, abortion is not acceptable as practice by Christians or non-Christians and must not be tolerated by this or any other society. Those individuals who fail to heed God's law by condoning abortion will surely face God's judgment if they remain impenitent. Even those who do not condone abortion but fail to take action against it will face judgment. For as noted previously in Leviticus both the Israelite who sacrificed his child to Molech and those who closed their eyes to the sin faced the judgment of God. And if a society as a whole persistently rejects God's laws it will surely corporately face God's judgment. The city of Carthage and the nation of Israel are but two of many historical testimonies to the outpouring of God's wrath against unrelenting corporate sin.
Something is happening in this land which God did not command nor did it enter His mind - this place is being filled with the blood of the innocent. So beware, for blood is on our hands and God will set his face against us unless we repent and are cleansed by his merciful forgiveness.
This is what the Lord says:
Look I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from
your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.
(Jeremiah 18:11)
Oh, that we might not respond like ancient Israel.
It is no use. We will continue with our own plans, each of us will follow the stubborness
of his evil heart.
(Jeremiah 18:12)
1. Kline, M.G., "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1977, p. 193.
2. Harden, D., The Phoenicians, 1962, p. 88.
3. For translation see Mosca P.G., Child Sacrifice in Caananite and Israelite Religion, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1975, p. 22.
4. Stager, LE. and Wolff, S.R., "Child Sacrifice at Carthage - Religious Rite or Population Control?", Biblical Archaelogy Review, Jan./Feb. 1984, p. 45.
5. Siculus, Diodorus, The Library of History, Book XX:14, The Loeb Classical Library.
6. Ibid.
7. Plutarch, De superstitione 171, The Loeb Classical Library.
8. Mosca, P.G., op. cit., p. 27, Mosca translates Kleitarchos' paraphraser from Scholia to Plato's Republic as follows: "There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the `grin' is known as `sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing."
9. de Vaux, R., Studies in Old Testament Sacrifices, 1964, p. 81. de Vaux says that slaughter preceding the cremation "has been well established by J. Guey in melanges d'archeologic et d'histoire, 1937, pp. 94-99."
10. Stager, L.E. and Wolff, S.R., op. cit., pp. 45, 47, citing P.G. Mosca's epigraphic work documented in his Ph.D. dissertation op. cit.
11. Siculus, Diodorus, op. cit., See also Plutarch op. cited where he says "Those who had no children would buy some little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds."
12. Kennedy, C., "Queries/Comments," Biblical Archeologie Review, May/June 1984, p. 20, citing J. Feuvier's article "Une Sacrifice d'Enfant chez les Numides," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philogic et d'Histoire Orientales et Slave,1953.
13. Siculus, Diodorus, op. cit.
14. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX: 4 The Loeb Classical Library.
15. Hamilton, E., Mythology, 1940, pp. 65, 66.
16. Stager, L.E. and Wolff, S.R., op. cit., pp. 50,51
17. Ibid., pp. 40-42. The archeologic evidence to support their conclusion is the greater proportion of human remains to animal remains in the most recent burial urns.
18. Wenham, G.J., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament - The Book of Leviticus, 1979, p. 259. There are text critical problems with I Kings 11:7. It may be that Milcum should be substituted for Molech in this verse (see I Kings 11:5, 33 in Hebrew)
19. Some scholars suggest that some uses of Molech in the Old Testament may have originally been used to refer to the live sacrificial offerings like Punic mulk. e.g., Mosca, P.G., op. cited, for summary see conclusions of chapter two and three.
20. Some scholars unconvincingly suggest that the "passing throught to Molech" was a ritual "passing through" without active sacrifice. e.g., Snaith, N.H., "The Cult of Molech," Vetus Testamentum, 1966, vol. 16, pp. 123, 124. For the best refutation of this view see Mosca, P.G., op. cited, esp. p. 152; also see the Jeremiah passages quoted in this paper.
21. Smith, W.R., Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 377. Note the reference to the fire pit of Topheth in Isaiah 30:33.
22. Wenham, G.J., op. cit., p. 249.
23. Kline, M.G., The Treaty of the Great King, 1963, pp. 79-83.
24. Wenham, G.J., op. cit., pp. 285, 286.
25. Whybray, R.N., Isaiah 40-66: New Century Bible, 1975, p. 202.
26. Weinfeld, M., Ugarit-Forschungen IV, 1972, p. 144. Translation by P. Mosca, op. cited, p. 143.
27. Kaiser, W.C., Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, 1983, p. 124.
28. Schlossberg, H., Idols for Destruction, 1983, p. 6.
29. Romans 1:23 and 1:25b mutually inform each other as indicated by the identical Greek verb translated "exchange" and parallel sentence structure.
30. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX.- 6,8.
31. Henry, C. in reviewing G. Jone's book Brave New People, 1985, see book cover.
32. Rankin, J.C., Contrabortion, June 1984, pg. 1.
33. Schmidt, S.M., "Wrongful Life," Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 28, 1983, Vol. 250, pp. 2209-10.
34. Mosca, P., op. cit., pp. 273, 274.
35. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, July 4, 1776.
Aja Brooks
Best joke ever!
3 hours ago · Like ·
Obama goes to a primary school to talk to & to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand & Obama asks him his name. " Stanley ," says the little boy.
"And what is your question, Stanley ?"
"I have 4 questions: 1st, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? 2nd, why are you President when John McCain got more votes? 3rd, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?" 4th, why are we so worried about gay-marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kids that they will continue after recess. When they resume Obama says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that 's right: question time. Who has a question? Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points to him & asks his name."Steve," he says. "And what is your question,Steve?" Actually, I have 6 questions. 1st why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? 2nd, why are you President when John McCain got more votes? 3rd, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? 4th, why are we so worried about gay marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance? 5th, why did the recess bell ring 20 min early? And 6th, what the hell happened to Stanley ?"
Susan Dunn Kravarik Too funny!!!
MAY IT ALSO BE NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH SPEAKER DAVID RALSTON IS MORMON, THAT HE REFUSED TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBJECT TO DEBATE PRE-NATAL MURDER, AND THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAS STALLED FOR TWO YEARS, http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/versions/hb1_LC_21_9986_pf_2.htm, MAKING ABORTION, IDOLATRY, AND OBAMANOMICS A RACKET TO ATTEMPT TO PROFIT OFF OF CARCASS HARVESTING, WHEN STEM CELL RESEARCH SUCCESS HAS ONLY BEEN LIMITED TO ORGAN REGENERATION; A COMPLETE WASTE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS, COSTING US A RATE OF $3 BILLION A YEAR.
@BarackObama we think America was exceptional until you farced the Office. Now you make Americans look exceptionally stupid wasting $9 trillion
GOVT. CAN'T CONTROL OUR LIFE AS A COMMODITY THROUGH H.R. 4872/HEALTH INSURANCE, OR IT WILL KILL US FINANCIALLY yhoo.it/mUhVJ7
Fed survey: Economy falters in several regions yhoo.it/mUhVJ7 via @YahooFinance Fed banks in NY, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago
@BarackObama it's all gravy you think that we're going to pay for your health care, I do not want your program, and I want you impeached.
@BarackObama the health care legislation needs to be repealed because it doesn't address sunset laws more stringently on related programs.
@
@BostonTeaParty @GayPatriot Obama can't lay off the crack rock, so he bans lightbulbs for the entire country. OBAMA AND CRACK IS WAY WHACK!
@
@foxnation TELL WEINER TO TAKE OBAMA WITH HIM
»
by 2011teaparty
more Corruption and obstruction of justice. Social Security and Selective Service are now blocking access for citizens to verify Obama’s...
OH BUT OBAMA WANTS INDIANA TO PAY FOR ABORTION, KILLING OFF THE NEXT GENERATION OF FUTURE TAXPAYERS WHEN WE HAVE A $14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.
HERE ARE SIX GOOD REASONS THAT DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT SUBJECT WE JUST DISCUSSED, AS TO WHY OBAMA NEVER SHOULD BE PRESIDENT AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY:
FIGURES COURTESY OF GLENN BECK’S “BROKE”:
OBAMA’S FIRST BUDGET IN 2009, CALLED FOR $42,000,000,000,000 TRILLION OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING OVER THE NEXT DECADE. OBAMA PROPOSED THE GOVERNMENT BORROW MORE MONEY IN 10YRS. THAN IT EVER HAS IN THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF OUR COUNTRY IN 225 !!
THE NEXT BUDGET, WHICH WE JUST SANK THIS SHIP TO HELL WITH THE PATH TO PROSPERITY, PROPOSED:
* SPENDING $45 TRILLION
* PUSH PUBLIC DEBT BEYOND 90% OF GDP, MORE THAN 2X CURRENT LEVEL
* RAISE TAXES BY $3 TRILLION
* RAISE TAXES ON SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS AND UPPER-INCOME TAXPAYERS BY $300,000 OVER 10YRS.
(THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE IN YOUR STATE WHO LIKE ME, STARTED THEIR OWN BUSINESS OVER THE PAST 3YRS., ARE LIKE... THAT’S 30 GRAND IN TAXES PER YEAR... WHETHER YOUR BUSINESS EVEN MAKE 30 GRAND OR NOT!!!!)
* BORROW 42 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR (THAT LEAVES MAYBE 8-10 CENTS, COMPLETELY BANKRUPTING THE DOLLAR AND STEALING THE TITHE)
* ADD ADDITIONAL $74,000 OF DEBT PER HOUSEHOLD!! (RIGHT NOW WITH $14 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, YOUR INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF THE DEBT IS $40,000+, WITH NO HOUSE OR CAR TO SHOW FOR IT AS IS, AND THEN HE WANTS YOU TO COUGH $110,000+ FOR HIS ENRICHMENT, NOT YOURS)
IF YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT BEING A CHRISTIAN, I’M SURE YOU ARE NOW, AND THIS IS WHY I ABSOLUTELY HATE OBAMA: NOT BECAUSE HE ISN’T A CHRISTIAN, BUT BECAUSE HIS INTENTIONS ARE VERY SINISTER OF ENTIRELY WIPING OUT OUR COUNTRY.
PROBABLY WHY THE PRESS FREAKED OUT OVER THE MOST RECENT WEIRDO GUEST(S) AT THE WHITE HOUSE:
Obama Invites Controversial President Of Gabon To White House
Written by NewsOne Staff on June 9, 2011 3:47 pmClick for More Next PostPresident Obama will be meeting with Ali Bongo Ondimba, the controversial president of Gabon who has been accused of human rights violations. In April 2011, Gabon was cited for “ritualistic killings,” “use of excessive force by police,” and “restrictions on privacy and press,” by the Department of State. Jack Blum, a consultant to the United Nations, says the invitation sends a bad message.
White House press secretary Jay Carney defended the President’s decision to invite the African leader, even though he has a “less than sterling” record.
“Gabon has voted in ways that we consider very helpful on issues like Cote d’Ivoire, Libya and Iran,” Carney said at a news briefing on Wednesday. “It has been an important ally in our efforts in those countries through the United Nations.”
Read more at NyDailyNews.com
Wed Jun 1, 2:49 pm ET
Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs
By Liz Goodwin
A slew of big-name former politicians are endorsing a report that says the war on drugs is not working and that drug enforcement policy needs to fundamentally change. The Global Commission on Drug Policy will urge a "paradigm shift" that emphasizes public health over criminalization tomorrow at a meeting in New York City,The Guardian reports.
Those backing the report include former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. Former elected leaders of Greece, Brazil and Colombia have also signed on. See the full list of backers here.
"What we have here is the greatest collection thus far of ex-presidents and prime ministers calling very clearly for decriminalization and experiments with legal regulation," Danny Kushlick, spokesman for the drug policy center Transform, told the Guardian. "It will be a watershed moment."
But, faced with the list of "formers" backing the new recommendation, The Lookout couldn't help but wonder: Where are all the current office-holders who think the drug war has been a failure?
Tom Angell, spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of former and current police officers against the criminalization of drugs, tells The Lookout he thinks sitting politicians will have to change their tune as American public opinion changes.
"I think as this debate continues to heat up and move forward you'll start to see more and more sitting elected officials endorsing fundamental reforms," he says. Even among LEAP's membership, most are retired law enforcement officers. Only a "handful" are active-duty cops, Angell says, in part because it's difficult for police officers to question the value of laws that they risk their lives to enforce every day.
Despite the political pitfalls of challenging drug policy, a few recent signs point to something of a bipartisan consensus forming on the issue. In April, an NAACP report that said states send too many young people to jail for non-violent drug offenses picked up surprising endorsements from former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who founded Americans for Tax Reform. The report said more than a quarter of the 2.3 million American prisoners are jailed for drug offenses, which bloats the system and eats up tax dollars. Christian talk show host Pat Robertson caused a stir in December when he endorsed on "The 700 Club" faith-based rehabilitation programs instead of jail time for drug use, and even appeared to support the legalization of marijuana. "I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong," he said. "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot--that kind of thing--it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people."
Public opinion polls show support is growing among Americans to legalize marijuana, but a majority still think the drug should be illegal. A greater share of Independents support its legalization than Democrats or Republicans.
The U.S. government has sent $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico and Central America to help fight the bloody war against the drug cartels. More than 35,000 people have died over the past four years in the drug-related violence. Drug cartels have turned to the use of narco-submarines and ultra-light aircraft to get their product to the U.S. market, in an effort to foil increased enforcement measures.
(Alleged members of Los Zetas drug cartel in February: Miguel Tovar/AP)
Other popular Yahoo! News stories:
• The New York Times denies hacking Goldman Sachs trader's email
• MSNBC's Bashir says Palin's bus tour 'could be in breach of federal law'
• Citing Madoff fraud lawyer wants divorce deal do-over
Top Stories - The Lookout
TEA PARTY STRATEGY ON HOW TO WIN FRIENDS:
How To Win Friends And Influence Liberals
June 9, 2011 by Ben Crystal
A FACEBOOK PAGE SET UP BY ANTHONY WEINER FANS
A year ago, this photo was posted on Facebook with the caption: "The first ever Weiner Caption Contest. I can't offer a prize but if you write the best caption, I'll call you and tell you and I'll announce it here."
Hey there, Democrats. It’s your pal, Ben. I want you to know I feel just awful about the way Representative Anthony Weiner not only lied about his misadventures on Twitter, but used your devotion against you. Weiner turned out every Democratic double-talking trick from Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton in an effort to hide his dalliances with dozens of women who he’s fairly certain were not still in junior high school. And most of you bought it. When Weiner claimed he was the real victim, you demanded justice. When Weiner told you he was hacked, you changed your passwords. When Weiner said it was a conservative conspiracy, you put on your tinfoil hats.
Let me use an old-neighborhood euphemism Weiner would recognize: Not for nothin’ — you got played.
But I’m not here to gloat. I have liberal friends who are beside themselves over Weiner’s amateur photography project. Liberals are fond of suggesting that conservatives are cruel. So I’m going to do something Weiner does only if you are female, hot and at least 18 (although he’s evidently flexible on proof of that last one): invite you to join us in the conservative ranks.
Think about it. This whole liberal thing isn’t working out all that well for you. President Barack Obama is as capable of dispensing his Presidential duties as I am of starting in place of Eli Manning next season. I’m fairly certain there’s a short in Vice President Joe Biden’s wiring. And now, your House of Representatives rising star has done a swan dive into the creepy end of the Internet.
Your party’s ideas are sillier than a little-watched cable network offering Lawrence O’Donnell an hour-long program. Obamacare seemed great, didn’t it? Resurrect Hillarycare and ram it down the nation’s throat. Too bad that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way. Are you sure these are the guys with whom you want to share a political foxhole?
Join the conservative movement. Imagine the joy of not having to be so damned indignant all the time. You never have to watch MSNBC and pretend you didn’t notice Ed Schultz has a severe personality disorder. You never have to listen to NPR and its parade of people who obviously talk with their eyes closed. No more pretending you’re not appalled when Obama tells you to cut back while his wife cavorts around some five-star resort in a dress that cost five figures.
If you’re a conservative, you can tell elected representatives who annoy you to “get stuffed.” When our guys disappoint us, we dump them faster than Larry Craig can tap his foot. We only begrudgingly showed up for Senator John McCain, and even then only because we liked Sarah Palin — and the alternative was worse than being forced to watch four years of Chris Matthews sneering like a crack-addled movie villain.
And you will be well protected. As long as you’re not a felon or Dailykos.com-stupid, we will encourage you to get a firearm. Let me amend that. I’ve seen how some of you throw a football. We will handle the weapons. Most of us own them, and we can shoot straight. Plus, most of the military is on our side — and soldiers really can shoot straight.
And conservative food is better. You’ve sworn off animal flesh because you heard California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown likes vegetarians. I’m sure that vegan diet is really, really healthy, but have you smelled Moonbeam? Step into Smith and Wollensky the next time you get a chance and tell me you’re sticking with your… er… what is that, a dirt sandwich?
But wait, there’s more! Nothing against home brewers, but imagine a pint of something that doesn’t involve ¼ inch of beer-flavored mud at the bottom of the glass. And making that “wine” must be fun. I have two fingers of single malt that says you would prefer a wingback chair, some old amber liquor over ice and an Ashton 8-9-8. That’s right: We get to smoke, too. And our smoke doesn’t always involve the fear of Drug Enforcement Administration assault teams. And a growing number of us think the DEA should concern itself with substances that involve worse outcomes than buying out the local Papa John’s.
No more kowtowing to tin-pot dictators and Islamofascist psychopaths. No more shovel-ready projects. No more racist Attorneys General. No more class warfare as a substitute for meaningful tax policy. No more dues to support union thugs. No more protecting foreign-oil godfathers. No more bald-faced hypocrisy.
At the very least, our women are all older than 18.
Facebook Myths Exposed
79
By SueShepard
See all 5 photos
Source: morgue
Who's Fooling Who on Facebook?
There is a wonderful place where old friendships reunite and new ones blossom. A place where everyone gets along and off in the distance you can see the sunshine and roses as vividly as your own image in the 32 profile pictures that you took yourself. Sounds too good to be true? It is. Here you will find some general myths that most of us have about this utopia we call Facebook.
Myth: Every single person whoever went to my high school, regardless of the year they graduated, finds me fascinating. In the first few months, it was a daily flood of invites that made you feel like a celebrity of sorts. Each morning, after brushing my long shiny locks and the bluebirds helped me on with my robe, I would float down the stairs with glee waiting to see who else wanted to be a part of my glamorous life. We all have glamorous lives inFacebookland, by the way.
Reality: Really? You want to be my friend after 20 years? Where were you when I needed someone's paper to look on for that algebra class I had to take twice? Or when the schoolyard bully wanted to use my face as a portable punching bag? They invited you simply because they want their friends list number to increase.
Source: Photobucket
Myth: Everyone else but me in Facebookland has a glamorous life. Look at all of their pictures at the ballgames, weddings and sitting in front of the fire with their matching outfits drinking wine. I see a lot of wine. It has to be true if there's wine.
Reality: Don't be so easily fooled. That picture you saw of 'Girls' Night Out' ended in Missy puking in the bushes in front of T.G.I. Friday's and her husband made her cook the family breakfast from scratch the next morning. Oh and the one of little Johnny sliding into home for the game winning point...dad got fired as the Little League coach three weeks later for bribing the umps. Pictures say a thousand words, but they hide a million more.
Myth: My friends list number went down. Oh well. Who cares?
Reality: OMG! What happened? Where am I? I need air! I will search for the next three hours if I have to in order to figure out who unfriended me, then once I find out who you are, I will spend another two hours checking to see if you are still friends with any of my friends. I will find out who you are.
Source: Photobucket
Source: Photobucket
Myth: I don't really care about how many comments or 'likes' I receive on my status posts. I am sure people are busy and losing interest a bit in the whole thing.
Reality: Yes I do! If I don't have more than 2 comments within an hour, I am frantically hitting the refresh button, checking power cords, calling the cable company to see if there are any connection problems...anything to justify this unfathomable concept that people aren't interested in me anymore.
Myth: It's perfectly Ok if I have a bottle of wine while spending time on Facebook.
Reality: It is never, never OK. Did I say never? Good Lord, avoid this little fun activity by all means. Sure, it may start out all fun and games, then I'd say about half way through the bottle, things will start to resemble Woodstock. You will invite people to be your friend who you do not know, then give them directions to your house because you have now found your soul mate. You will send your mother a hate filled message because she didn't let you go see New Kids on The Block back in the 80's when they were actually 'new' and 'kids'. You will post Youtube videos of every song that you liked from the time you were four years old. It just is never OK.
Source: Photobucket
I have to admit that I, too, have a Facebook account and have been drawn into some of these myths. I won't reveal which ones. But whether or not we are fooling ourselves or being fooled by others, I hope none of us are taking this fantasy land too seriously.
I will now be heading over there to update my status to "Great Night! Worked Out, Had a Wonderful Family Dinner and Quality Time with my Honey!". Reality: "Tonight Sucked. Walked the Garbage to the Curb, Brought Home Take Out and Wrote this Article while 'Honey' was Sleeping on the Couch."
| * | Facebook Addiction: The Life & Times of Social Networking AddictsAmazon Price: $9.26List Price: $9.95 |
| * | Facebook FriendsAmazon Price: $20.00 |
VOTE UPVOTE DOWNSHAREPRINTFLAG
Was this Hub ...?
IS SARAH PALIN-MICHELE BACHMANN BEEF REAL OR IMAGINED PRESS?
WHAT IS IT ABOUT SARAH PALIN THAT THE MEDIA FINDS SO DISSABLE ???
Tags: The Palin Page | 2012 President Race | 2012 GOP Primary | Sarah Palin | Michele Bachmann | Ed Rollins
Bachmann Campaign Manager Rollins Goes After Palin
Thursday, 09 Jun 2011 10:27 AM
By Dan Weil
The alliance between likely Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and possible candidate Sarah Palin appears to be fraying.
And it's being fueled largely by Bachmann's new campaign manager, Ed Rollins. On Tuesday, veteran Republican strategist Rollins took some shots at Palin. “Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years,” he said in an interview on Fox News Radio.
“She got the vice-presidential thing handed to her. She didn’t go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance. She gave up her governorship.”
Bachmann is expected to launch her campaign this month in Iowa, while Palin still is mulling her options. Both have strong support from conservatives.
In public, the two remain allies, with the friendship forged when former Alaska Gov. Palin went to Minnesota to campaign for the congresswoman in her difficult re-election bid last year.
Although that appearance was a success, there were disagreements over logistics at the finish, according to Politico. And ever since, Palin has voiced “disdain” for Bachmann privately, a Palin associate told the news service. This source says that many Palin supporters view Bachmann as simply riding on Palin’s coattails.
Palin’s PAC treasurer, Tim Crawford, told Politico that the rumors of Palin holding a grudge against Bachmann are “not true whatsoever,” pointing out that “Michele was the first person Sarah campaigned for in the 2010 cycle.”
As for Bachmann, she’s fine with Palin. Two people close to her tell Politico that she expresses as much affection for Palin in private as she does in public. But they say Bachmann has never called the two close.
When CBS asked Bachmann last month whether she had consulted with Palin about running for president, Bachmann said that would be great, but said jokingly, “I don’t have her cellphone number.”
One thing is for sure: Palin's and Bachmann’s aides are going at it.
Rollins went on Tuesday to slam Palin. “Michele Bachmann and others [have] worked hard,” he said. “She has been a leader of the Tea Party which is a very important element here, she has been an attorney, she has done important things with family values.”
Rollins reiterated those thoughts in an interview with Politico. Bachmann will “be so much more substantive,” he said. “People are going to say, ‘I gotta make a choice and go with the intelligent woman who’s every bit as attractive.’ ”
Then on Wednesday, Palin’s chief of staff, Michael Glassner, fought back. “Beltway political strategist Ed Rollins has a long, long track record of taking high profile jobs and promptly sticking his foot in his mouth,” he said in a statement.
"To no one's surprise he has done it again, while also fueling a contrived narrative about the presidential race by the mainstream media. One would expect that his woodshed moment is coming and that a retraction will be issued soon."
In an interview on CNN Wednesday, Rollins didn’t apologize, but he did soften his words a bit. “I don’t think Palin runs, and if she does, we will deal with it,” he said. “There obviously is a trend in the media to link them. In the long run we want Palin and her people as our allies.”
Bachmann may gain an advantage in distancing herself from Palin, but it could instead be a blunder, given Palin’s strong popularity with conservatives. The Minnesotan will certainly seek the Alaskan’s endorsement if Palin decides not to run.
Some political heavies say Rollins’ comments were a mistake. “I think it is ill advised,” said Republican strategist Curt Anderson. He suggests that Rollins may just have been speaking off the top of his head rather than executing a planned strategy. “Why would you attack a barracuda?”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Bachmann Campaign Manager Rollins Goes After Palin
Friend: Sarah Palin Is Ignoring Elisabeth Hasselbeck 151 Comments By Rob Shuter Posted Jun 8th 2011 09:08AM 156518937Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who once dutifully campaigned alongside Sarah Palin during her run for higher office in 2008, is no longer feeling the love for the likely presidential candidate, in face, a close friend of the 'View' star reveals the two haven't spoken in months.
"I think Elisabeth is a good friend. She remembers birthdays and even with a busy schedule always takes time to stay in touch with her girlfriends," a pal tells me. "But Sarah has let her down. Elisabeth has reached out to her several times but she never responds."
It's gotten so grating on Elisabeth that, according to my source, "she has stopped trying all together and doesn't care who knows."
Elisabeth recently accused Sarah of "manipulating" the media to draw attention away from the more-serious Mitt Romney, and mocked her ex-friend's bus tour as another attempt to dominate the headlines. Sarah's decision to roll through New Hampshire on the day Mitt announced his run for the White House clearly annoyed the daytime star. "If I had termites in my house, I'd get someone in there who could deal with it," Hasselbeck said on 'The View.' "Mitt Romney, right now, his specialty is the economy. I'd have him in there. Here's why we're not hearing it: because Sarah Palin's on a bus, and right now she's manipulating, in terms of media attention."Before that, Elisabeth also condemned Sarah's "crosshairs" imagery on a fundraising website, calling them "despicable" after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, one of her 'targets' in the 2010 campaign, was shot during a voter meet-and-greet. "Elisabeth feels used by Sarah," an insider tells me. "When she needed her, she was all over Elisabeth and now she treats her like a stranger.
It's sad."
TIME FOR SOME COMMENTARY:
- ELISABETH HASSELBECK’S FIRST MISTAKE IS BEING ON “THE VIEW” AND LETTING WHOOPI GOLDBERG PAINT HER AS WHITE BREAD SUNBEAM LADY, ESPECIALLY ON POLITICS, AND HASSELBECK’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES HAVE MORE HOLES THAN GIFFORD’S HEAD.
- HER SECOND MISTAKE WAS SUPPORTING HUCAKBEE, WHO HAS A TERRIBLE PARDON RECORD, AND...
- HER THIRD MISTAKE IS SUPPORTING MITT ROMNEY, WHO FAILED HIS STATE BY INSTATING OBAMACARE, THAT 31 OTHER STATES DON’T WANT AND HAVE FILED LAWSUITS OVER.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK IS LIKE CONSERVATIVE LITE DRINK: WHEN YOU REALLY WANT A SODA AND ARE FORCED TO DRINK A DIET DRINK, THAT IS THE TASTE THAT SHE LEAVES IN YOUR MOUTH... NOTHING BUT ALL THE FLAVOR OF FAKE POLITICS.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK MISSED HER CHANCE IN THE POLITICAL AREANA BECAUSE SHE FELL OFF THAT TURNIP TRUCK A LONG TIME AGO, WHICH IS WHY SHE IS STUCK BEING WHIPPING POST ON “THE VIEW”, WHY I DON’T WATCH THE SH-T ANYWAY.
A “NEWTINY”, AS COINED BY JAKE TAPPER, ERUPTS --
GA TEA PARTY MEMBERS PART WAYS WITH NEWT’S HEADQUARTERS BEING IN ATLANTA AS HIS STAFF RESIGNS FROM THEIR POSTS....
| * June 9th, 2011 05:17 PM ET BREAKING: Gingrich top aides abandon campaign
Washington (CNN) – At least seven members of Newt Gingrich's senior campaign staff resigned Thursday, sources told CNN, but the Republican presidential candidate pledged he would start his campaign "anew." In addition, one of his national campaign co-chairs defected Thursday to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's presidential campaign, according to a Pawlenty campaign release. Former Gov. Sonny Perdue of Gingrich's home state of Georgia moved over to the competing campaign. The staff resignations included his campaign manager Rob Johnson and long-time Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler. Also departing are Gingrich strategists Dave Carney and Sam Dawson. Consultants Katon Dawson, who is based in South Carolina, Craig Schoenfeld, who is based in Iowa, and Scott Rials, who is based in Georgia, have left as well as six staff members in Iowa and Perdue. Gingrich held a meeting Thursday with Johnson and Dawson to discuss disagreements between the candidate and his staff. Tyler said the discussion was about "Newt as a candidate and control of the campaign and scheduling." The aides resigned when an agreement was not reached, but Tyler said aides are "always hopeful for a mutually agreeable path forward." But when a campaign and a candidate do not see eye to eye "they've got to part ways," Tyler told CNN. "The professional team came to the realization that the direction of the campaign they sought and Newt's vision for the campaign were incompatible," Carney told CNN. Gingrich responded to the events on his Facebook page Thursday. "I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring. The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles," Gingrich wrote. An aide told CNN that "Newt will participate in Monday's debate in New Hampshire as originally planned." CNN, WMUR and the New Hampshire Union Leader are sponsoring a GOP presidential debate Monday in Manchester. Gingrich was absent from the campaign trail for about two weeks recently because of a "planned vacation" with his wife, Callista. He returned with a campaign stop Wednesday in Hudson, New Hampshire. Tyler said the "vacation was not helpful." And Craig Schoenfeld, former Iowa Executive Director for Newt 2012, who confirmed all six of Gingrich's paid staff members in Iowa resigned, said "the timing was unfortunate but it's not directly related to his vacation." They already had the sense before the vacation that Gingrich wasn't committed to spending the time in Iowa that it takes to win. "Bottom line is there was a difference of opinion in how we saw a path to success and victory," Schoenfeld said. The difference of opinion centered on "commitment of securing and deploying campaign resources and commitment of candidate time to the campaign trail." "I knew what it was going to take to be successful in Iowa, the New Hampshire team knew what it was going to take to be successful in New Hampshire, the South Carolina team knew what it was going to take to be successful in South Carolina," Schoenfeld said. "As a team we were all in unison on that approach," but the candidate they were working for was not. His decision was made after a series of meetings between the national staff about where, what, who, when and how to approach the rest of the campaign. Schoenfeld was not a part of those meetings, but the message was conveyed to the state directors after those meetings that the candidate had a different type of campaign in mind. Schoenfeld said he has not been approached by any other campaign, and as far as he knows none of his staff has either. When Newt's national campaign staff told him about their strategic differences with the candidate, they did not ask him to sign on with another candidate instead. One of the Gingrich staffers who resigned said it wasn't a personal issue, but there was a big question about his ability to raise money and the candidate's commitment to early voting states particularly Iowa. "There is a shortage of money," the staffer said. "It is a tough day and a tough world out here in the fundraising and political arena." The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Gingrich didn't make the "time to go and shake hands with voters." The departures of Johnson and Carney are already fueling speculation about a potential candidacy by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Perry recently said he plans to consider a Republican presidential bid after the Texas legislative session concludes, and both Carney and Johnson are two of the governor's top political advisers. Their resignation from the Gingrich campaign would free them up to assist Perry if he decides to run. Despite the 2012 chatter, Perry's office insists that the governor has no current plans to run for president. Perdue, who joined Team Pawlenty Thursday, is very close to Pawlenty's campaign manager, Nick Ayers, who ran Perdue's gubernatorial campaign. "Tim Pawlenty is a great man, he was a phenomenal governor, and he is the person I now believe stands the greatest chance of defeating President Obama," Perdue said in a statement. "He is the only candidate who has laid out a real plan to grow the American economy, and his track record in Minnesota is proof he's the right man for the job." The former House Speaker announced his bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination on May 11. He is best known for engineering the Contract with America and leading the Republicans' surge to power in Congress in 1994 but his reputation took a hit in 1995, when a budget standoff in the House led to a temporary shutdown of parts of the federal government. Republicans didn't fare well in the 1998 elections, and Gingrich stepped down. – CNN's Mark Preston, Peter Hamby, John King, Kevin Bohn and Adam Aigner-Treworgy contributed to this report. |
@newtgingrich I just heard your quote "right wing social engineering is no different than left wing social engineering" so what's your plan?
@newtgingrich if you call Tiffany's&a cruise to Greece a pre-emptive present taxpayers would foot the bill for as President you're mistaken.
@newtgingrich people scrutinize your private life as a politician for they perceive it as micro to the macro as indicative of you in Office.
@newtgingrich maybe today's announcement in GA that we are done with Sue Everhart's Old Hat Republican tactics and dirty tricks did you in.
@newtgingrich we can't stack chips w/you at the table, when you think Tea Party has no right to play in political circle with Repubs.
@newtgingrich additionally, we feel the same way about Sue Everhart, Debbie Dooley, and others in the GA GOP -------------- :P
@newtgingrich we will take our $ and endorsements elsewhere, because we put our $ where our mouth is not OUR HANDS IN TAXPAYERS POCKETS!!!!
@newtgingrich to a true Conservative, your lavish gifts SCREAM DEBT, DEBT, DEBT, like you are Obama in white face and a red monkey suit.
by 2011teaparty
June 09, 2011
Rapper Calls Obama 'Biggest Terrorist'
Fire it up
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069803-10391715.html
Share
By Marcus Riley, NBC Chicago
Lupe Fiasco called out President Barack Obama this week, calling his fellow Chicagoan "the biggest terrorist."
The comments came in an interview with CBS News Tuesday while discussing the political content of his music.
"My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."
SEE MORE VIDEOS AT NBCCHICAGO.COM
@
@B4INTeaParty you mean Democrats are defending Weiner's weiner??!! Naw, these are the same ones defending Obama.... conincidence???
THE POWER OF THE PEN HAS NOW BECOME THE POWER OF THE KEYBOARD....
Bachmann now follows “The Synthesis” and postings:
|
OBAMA CAN’T EVEN DEAL DIPLOMATICALLY WITH AMERICAN PUBLIC, LET ALONE OTHER COUNTRIES:
OBAMA ALREADY RAMPING UP TIME-SENSITIVE CENSORSHIP AND INTERNET CONTROLS, WHERE YOU HAVE TO WRITE GOOGLE, TWITTER, FACEBOOK OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CONTEST YOUR TIMELY RELEASE OF MATERIAL AND OPINIONS:
"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821
In our 576th issue:
UPDATES
MINILINKS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Reject the PROTECT IP Act
The dangerous PROTECT IP Internet censorship bill (or PIPA) seeks to grant the government new powers to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users' attempts to reach websites' URLs, all in the name of stopping websites "dedicated to infringing activities." Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement, but Internet rights advocates know that PIPA would invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation. Send an email now to urge legislators in Congress to reject this dangerous bill! Send an email now to urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!
Hundreds Stand up for Online Anonymity in EFF's Tor Challenge
Less than a week ago, EFF launched a campaign to encourage volunteers to run Tor relays. Tor is software that helps users mask their IP addresses; it's a vital tool for investigative journalists, whistle-blowers and humanitarian aid workers across the globe. Tor relies on a network of volunteer computers helping to route traffic in order to function - which means regular users can contribute.
When EFF launched the Tor Challenge, we hoped to add 100 new Tor nodes to the network - a small but important step in protecting online anonymity. We were thrilled to see over 100 new relays were launched within the first twenty-four hours of our campaign. We increased our goal to 250 - and two days later we surpassed that goal. Currently over 300 new relays have been created as part of our Tor Challenge.
"Every relay makes a difference to Tor in terms of speed and security. We thank EFF for their efforts to help more people protect their privacy, anonymity, and freedom of expression online," Karen Reilly of the Tor Project.
Ready to join EFF in defending online privacy? Visit EFF's Tor Challenge to find out how.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls Upon States to Protect Anonymous Speakers Online
On June 3, EFF will begin live coverage of a critical discussion about online freedom of expression held by the U.N Human Rights Council during its session in Geneva. The meeting will include the introduction of a landmark report by United Nations Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue that advocates safeguards for free expression online including privacy and anonymity. Anonymity protects dissent by eliminating fear of reprisals and breaking the silence of self-censorship. It also plays a crucial role in environments hostile to journalism. Stay tuned to the Deeplinks blog for EFF's coverage of the fight for anonymity at the U.N.
Big Media Tramples On Constitutional Rights in California
A bill that just passed Calfiornia's State Senate would authorize law enforcement to search optical disc manufacturing plants without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion. This bill would grant sweeping new powers to law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of California businesses. For more than 200 years, law enforcement officers have been able to comply with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and still do their job fighting crime. So why would California bend these rules when it comes to copyright enforcement?
EFF Updates
EFF Members-Only Speakeasy: Seattle
Join Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann for a drink on Thursday, June 16, in Seattle! EFF's Speakeasy events are free, informal gatherings that give you a chance to mingle with local members and meet the people behind the world's leading digital civil liberties organization.
Twitter, Free Speech, Super-Injunctions and the Streisand Effect
Despite a super injunction in place to keep his name and the story of his extra-marital affair out of the tabloids, a British footballer has found that where there’s the Internet, there’s a way...for the story to get out, that is. The recent super injunction highlighted the UK's need for intermediary protections like those offered under U.S. law.
EFF Files Petition Opposing Proposed AT&T/T-Mobile Merger
EFF filed a petition with the Department of Justice and the FCC asking the administration to deny AT&T Inc.’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA, based on concerns about the risk of non-neutral behavior as a result of decreased competition.
"Who Has Your Back" In Depth: Fighting For Users' Privacy Rights in Court
Continuing EFF's series related to our Who Has Your Back? campaign, we explore how we rate companies that go to court to fight for their users' privacy interests in response to government demands for information.
miniLinks
Syrian Internet Shutdown
According to Renesys, approximately two-thirds of all Syrian networks became unreachable from the global Internet on Friday of last week. Over the course of roughly half an hour, the routes to 40 of 59 networks were withdrawn from the global routing table.
Putting Fair Use Forward
Two professors at American University are on a mission to show how, under fair use, many scholars can use copyrighted material without breaking the law, even if they never ask the rights holders and even if they hope to profit from their resulting academic books.
Develop for Privacy Challenge
The deadline is fast approaching to submit your privacy-enhancing mobile app. Check out the contest today.
Administrivia
ISSN 1062-9424
EFFector is a publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA
94110-1914
USA +1 415 436 9333
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
eff.org
Editor: Rainey Reitman, Activist
editor@eff.org
Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries: information@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission.
Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually at will.
Back issues of EFFector
Change your email address
This newsletter is printed from 100% recycled electrons.
EFF appreciates your support and respects your privacy. Privacy Policy.
Unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
THE BELL TELLS FOR YOU
OP/ED
61KShare
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
Jun. 7 2011 - 2:04 pm | 806,972 views | 2 recommendations | 107 comments
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
More from contributor Larry Bell
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
Pages: 1 2 3
Previous Post:The New Military War Against Climate Change
by 2011teaparty
Another “WTF” Obama Foreign Policy Momenthttp://fb.me/H9G3pDgB
@
@SarahPalinUSA hey you have so many friends I can't like or comment on your posts, so it makes exchanges difficult between us.
@SarahPalinUSA Why is it Obama works so hard to give things to our enemies, while asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?
@SarahPalinUSA I will use this quote in "The Synthesis" but you must answer that question, for it is the very reason you're not V.P. now.
Another “WTF” Obama Foreign Policy Moment
by Sarah Palin on Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 7:16am
As Governor I fought the Obama Administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska. So imagine how appalled and surprised I was to read this article by former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, appropriately titled “Giving Away the Farm,” concerning President Obama’s latest bizarre actions relating to missile defense.
President Obama wants to give Russia our missile defense secrets because he believes that we can buy their friendship and cooperation with this taxpayer-funded gift. But giving military secrets and technologies to a rival or competitor like Russia is just plain dumb. You can’t buy off Russia. And giving them advanced military technology will not create stability. What happens if Russia gives this technology (or sells it!) to other countries like Iran or China? After all, as Woolsey points out, Russia helped Iran with its missile and nuclear programs. Or what happens if an even more hardline leader comes to power in the Kremlin?
We tried buying off the Kremlin with technologies in the 1970s. That policy was a component of “detente,” and the hope was that if we would share our technologies with them, they would become more peaceful. Things, of course, didn’t work out that way. The Kremlin took western technologies and embarked on a massive military building program. History teaches that peace comes from American military strength. And a central component of that has always been technological superiority. Why would President Obama even dream of giving this away?
Members of Congress saw how foolish President Obama’s gambit was, so they put a section in the defense appropriation bill that specifically forbids the federal government from spending money to share these technologies with the Kremlin. President Obama actually threatened to veto the defense appropriation bill over this section of the law! Fortunately, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, a whopping 322 to 96. Attention now turns to the Senate.
Why is it that President Obama seems to work so hard to give things to our enemies, while at the same time asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?
During these tough economic times when we are facing massive deficits and a competitive global economy, does President Obama really want to give away technologies that the American taxpayer paid lots of money to develop? Giving away our missile defense secrets won’t make us safer. What it will do is create a situation where we are facing an arms race with ourselves. Russia gets access to our technologies, and we are forced to spend even more money because of the need to stay ahead. Does this make sense to you? Me neither. File this under “WTF”.
- Sarah Palin
Share
- 11 people like this.
Issa calls hearing on Justice Department possibly obstructing justice
- Posted by Asst Natl Dir Mellie B on June 8, 2011 at 4:05pm in Obama Admin & the Democratic Majority
- View Discussions
Published: 5:26 PM 06/07/2011 | Updated: 12:12 AM 06/08/2011
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
California Republican Darrell Issa has called a hearing to look at the possibility that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may be committing obstruction of justice by ignoring a subpoena.
On April 1, Issa, House Oversight Committee chairman, subpoenaed all documents pertaining to two Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) programs, Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious.
Specifically, Issa was looking for documents and communications “relating to the genesis” of the programs and any information related to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/issa-calls-hearing-on-justice-dep...
For those of you not familiar with Project Gunrunner. Here is a piece written by Michelle Malkin over at The National Review:
March 30, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Project Gunrunner
Obama’s stimulus-funded border nightmare
Buried in Barack Obama’s failed trillion-dollar stimulus program was a $10 million bloody border racket that has now cost American lives. This goes far beyond the usual waste, fraud and abuse underwritten by progressive profligacy. It’s bloodstained government malfeasance overseen by anti-gun ideologues — and now anti-gun ideologue Attorney General Eric Holder will “investigate.”
Welcome to Project Gunrunner. Prepare for another Justice Department whitewash.
finish reading this article here
Tags: Barack, Darrell, Department, Eric, Fast, Furious, Gunrunner, Holder, Issa, Justice
ShareTwitterFacebook
▶ Reply to This
Feds arrest 16 in cocaine trafficking, money laundering bust
By Christopher Seward
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Federal authorities say they have arrested 16 suspects and dismantled a major Mexican drug trafficking ring operating out of metro Atlanta.
More Atlanta/Fulton news »
U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said alleged drug traffickers and money launderers were arrested early Wednesday as part of the Drug Enforcement Administration's three-year "Operation G-60″ investigation. She said more than $7 million worth of cocaine and more than $ 1 million in "dirty drug money" was confiscated.
“Operation G-60 has dealt a severe blow to the Mexican drug cartels operating in the metro Atlanta area," Yates said.
"These traffickers were clearly working under the direction of Mexican drug cartel leadership," said John S. Comer, acting special agent in charge of the DEA Atlanta Field Division. " The substances that they distributed clearly destroyed lives."
The federal charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison and a fine of up to $4 million.
Agents seized 312 kilograms of cocaine, about 1,525 kilograms of marijuana and more than $1.5 million in drug money. Wednesday's arrests were part of a criminal indictment handed down by a federal grand jury on May 11 in which 32 individuals were charged for their participation in various drug-related criminal offenses, including conspiring and possessing with intent to distribute at least 5 kilograms of cocaine and at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, as well as related money laundering charges.
Yates said the trafficking ring consisted of several “cells” in the Atlanta area. Some of those arrested allegedly were responsible for transporting drugs and drug money, and maintaining “stash houses” and vehicles used by the organization in metro Atlanta.
The suspects arrested included Marvin Edleman Rodas-Perez, 39 of Norcross; Fatima Vasquez, 24, of Lawrenceville; Jose Valencia, 34, of Stockbridge; Martin Ayala-Casteneda, 34, of College Park; Jose Vargas, 29, of Morrow; Jose Sanchez-Valencia, 22, of Stockbridge; Geovany Martinez-Vargas, 23, of Stockbridge; Sonia Sanchez, 34, of Atlanta; Carmen Barbosa Mendoza, 33, of Gwinnett County; Tomar Shaw, 32, of Fairburn; David Sanchez, 31, of Johns Creek; Juan Castinanda, 25, of Johns Creek; Rudy Valencia, 27, of Johns Creek; Roberto Lopez-Martinez, 28, of Atlanta; Wilson Tejada, 30, of New York, NY; and Maria Del Rosario Diaz-Garcia, 28. No city was given for Diaz-Garcia.
HONORABLE MENTION:
Civil Rights Leader Clara Luper Dies
Luper Helped Spark Fight For Rights In Oklahoma
POSTED: 4:52 am CDT June 9, 2011
UPDATED: 5:01 am CDT June 9, 2011
(1)
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Clara Luper, a pioneer of civil rights in Oklahoma, died Wednesday night in Oklahoma City, according to friends.
Luper, a retired schoolteacher, led a sit-in movement in downtown Oklahoma City in the late 1950s. Luper was an advocate of non-violent activism throughout her life.
Luper remained an active part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
There's a scholarship named in her honor at Oklahoma City University.
Funeral services are pending.
CIVIL RIGHTS OF OLD, LIKE SHARING FOUNTAINS AND BATHROOMS NOW MOLTS INTO MORE SILLINESS UNDER OBAMB’S FLAGRANT SUPPORT OF LGBT RIGHTS ABOVE COMMON SENSE. OBAMA WANTS TO CHANGE HOW YOU EVEN GO TO THE BATHROOM!!http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redmassgroup.com%2Fdiary%2F12146%2Fbathroom-bill-get-another-hearing-on-beacon-hill&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFMfdCcBTVqMZzUpNQvX0KaOo47Xw
THIS WEEK’S DISHONORABLE MENTIONS GO TO:
Flo Rida Busted for DUI In Super-EXPENSIVE Car
11 minutes ago by TMZ Staff
Rapper Flo Rida -- the guy behind the smash hit, "Low" -- was busted for drunk driving in Miami Beachthis morning in one of the most expensive cars in the planet!!!!
Law enforcement sources say ... Flo Rida was driving around in his red and black Bugatti -- valued around $1.7 million -- when cops observed the rapper swerving in his lane and pulled him over around 3:30 AM.
During the stop, cops detected the odor of alcohol -- so Flo was given a field sobriety test ... and didn't perform very well.
Flo -- real name Tramar Dillard -- was arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to a nearby station where he is currently being booked. Sources tell us Flo's blood alcohol level was more than double the legal limit.
Story developing ...
TO FINISH READING THE BLOG, GO TO: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HjzTDFlhfE2PTumdaH0iX9vfb3eA3ywtODiwdDtMTys/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
No comments:
Post a Comment