Monday, July 29, 2013

Weekly Address: Sandy Hook Victim’s Mother Calls for Commonsense Gun Responsibility Reforms

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks of Francine Wheeler
The President’s Weekly Address

Hi. As you’ve probably noticed, I’m not the President. I’m just a citizen. And as a citizen, I’m here at the White House today because I want to make a difference and I hope you will join me.

My name is Francine Wheeler. My husband David is with me. We live in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

David and I have two sons. Our older son Nate, soon to be 10 years old, is a fourth grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Our younger son, Ben, age six, was murdered in his first-grade classroom on December 14th, exactly 4 months ago this weekend.

David and I lost our beloved son, but Nate lost his best friend. On what turned out to be the last morning of his life, Ben told me, quite out of the blue, “ I still want to be an architect, Mama, but I also want to be a paleontologist, because that’s what Nate is going to be and I want to do everything Nate does.”

Ben’s love of fun and his excitement at the wonders of life were unmatched His boundless energy kept him running across the soccer field long after the game was over. He couldn’t wait to get to school every morning. He sang with perfect pitch and had just played at his third piano recital. Irrepressibly bright and spirited, Ben experienced life at full tilt.

Until that morning. 20 of our children, and 6 of our educators – gone. Out of the blue.

I’ve heard people say that the tidal wave of anguish our country felt on 12/14 has receded. But not for us. To us, it feels as if it happened just yesterday. And in the four months since we lost our loved ones, thousands of other Americans have died at the end of a gun. Thousands of other families across the United States are also drowning in our grief.

Please help us do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy.

Sometimes, I close my eyes and all I can remember is that awful day waiting at the Sandy Hook Volunteer Firehouse for the boy who would never come home – the same firehouse that was home to Ben’s Tiger Scout Den 6. But other times, I feel Ben’s presence filling me with courage for what I have to do – for him and all the others taken from us so violently and too soon. 

We have to convince the Senate to come together and pass commonsense gun responsibility reforms that will make our communities safer and prevent more tragedies like the one we never thought would happen to us.

When I packed for Washington on Monday, it looked like the Senate might not act at all. Then, after the President spoke in Hartford, and a dozen of us met with Senators to share our stories, more than two-thirds of the Senate voted to move forward. 

But that’s only the start. They haven’t yet passed any bills that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. And a lot of people are fighting to make sure they never do.

Now is the time to act. Please join us. You can talk to your Senator, too. Or visit WhiteHouse.gov to find out how you can join the President and get involved.

Help this be the moment when real change begins. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama makes a statement about the explosions at the Boston Marathon.

Understand how and where your tax dollars are being spent.

President Obama sends a message to the White House email list to explain why he asked Francine Wheeler to deliver the Weekly Address.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions)::In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::'''EDIT''' You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does ''[sic]'' this frequently."  I trust you are familiar with [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm#x3dot3 Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::'''EDIT''' You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does ''[sic]'' this frequently."  I trust you are familiar with [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm#x3dot3 Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)$wgGroupPermissions['*'            ]['createpage'] = false;$wgGroupPermissions['user'        ]['createpage'] = false;$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true;$wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you've taken interest in voter ID just as I have, and I found out this week that the Arkansas Secretary of State has proposed rules to implement Arkansas' new voter ID law. [2]. I'm planning on writing up and submitting comments to fix several issues with the rules, and I was wondering whether you were planning on submitting comments or wanted to see what I am writing. Hopefully, if the rules are fixed as I suggest, the voter ID law should survive federal and state court challenges. Thanks, GregG 13:24, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

That's interesting. I wasn't planning on submitting any comments, but I'd be curious to see what you submit. My own view is that voter ID laws are not as significant as early voting laws.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I think if Conservapedians could spend more time creating content rather than fighting spammers that they would do so if given the opportunity.

Why don't you add the feature to the wiki that fights spammers that Brenden says works great at his wiki?

Here is the informmation:

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. Here is the information for this extention: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I hope this helps. Conservative 10:30, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

User:Conservative reverted my recent edits without explanation and protected the page. Since there is no way to contact U:C and I don't see it likely that there will be fruitful discussion about improving the article about the logical fallacy of quote mining, I would request that the page be unprotected and that U:C work in collegiality with me to improve the page. Thanks, GregG 11:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

There is nothing wrong about quoting the other side and using those quotes to disprove and discredit their position. Some evolutionists pretend there is something wrong with this, yet politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does this frequently.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT) I'm glad you are offering your input, and I should probably explain my changes fully on the talk page. Science, law, theology, politics, mathematics, and philosophy are all different systems for answering questions about our world. Each system has its own rules, so what may be a valid argument in law (citing to binding precedent or quoting an authority) is not necessarily valid in science or math. Likewise, logical deduction from axioms is the main way mathematical results are proven, but it has less utility in the other systems of answering questions. In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article. Thanks, GregG 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does [sic] this frequently." I trust you are familiar with Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. GregG 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Try this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; $wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes


View the original article here

Uh-Oh! Building ObamaCare’s Health Exchanges Has Already Cost Double the Expected Amount

Credit: WhiteHouse.govCredit: WhiteHouse.govHere’s another ominous sign for ObamaCare’s future: The Department of Health and Human Services admitted yesterday that setting up the law has cost twice as much as expected so far. And you can't really blame Republican opposition for the overrun: That’s just accounting for the cost of building exchanges in states that said they want to run them.

Here’s The Hill with the report:

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said in budget documents Wednesday that it expects to spend $4.4 billion by the end of this year on grants to help states set up new insurance exchanges. HHS had estimated last year that the grants would cost $2 billion.

The department also is asking Congress for another $1.5 billion to help set up federally run exchanges in states that do not establish their own.

Just because HHS is asking for the money, of course, doesn’t mean it’s going to get it. So if not, then what? The HHS has promised it will, er, do something—something!—to make it all work. But it won’t say what. At least not yet:

HHS Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources Ellen Murray punted Wednesday when asked about the consequences if Congress also denies the new request.

The department is "determined to make them work," she said of the exchanges.

A big chunk of the grant money doled out so far went to California. It has reportedly received $909 million in federal funding to build its exchange. But even with the hefty funding it's not going smoothly. The state's insurance regulators have warned that residents should expect "rate and market disruption" when the state's health insurance exchange opens. 


View the original article here

Remarks by the President at Presentation of the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy to the U.S. Naval Academy Football Team

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

East Room

2:12 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  (Applause.)  Hello.  Please, everybody have a seat.  Well, good afternoon.  Welcome to the White House. 

I want to start by recognizing Coach Ken Niumatalolo, my fellow Hawaiian, for being here once again -- where is he?  There he is right here.  (Laughter.)  Hard to miss him.  Give him a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  I also want to recognize Vice Admiral Mike Miller, the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, for his outstanding service to our country and for keeping all of you guys in line.  (Laughter and applause.)   

It is my pleasure to welcome the Navy Midshipmen back to the White House to receive the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy -- again.  They have now won 19 of their last 21 games against the other service academies, making this their 8th trip here in 10 years.  (Applause.)  Michelle and I were thinking about just leaving the key under the rug.  (Laughter.)  

This season, you finished 8-5, earned your 9th bowl appearance in the last 10 years.  But perhaps most importantly, after a two-year break, you achieved that very first goal you set at the start of every season:  You beat Air Force, you beat Army, and lugged this 170-pound trophy back to Annapolis. 

Against Air Force, you lost your quarterback to an injury in the middle of the game.  You trailed by eight points in the fourth quarter.  But freshman quarterback Keenan Reynolds took over and led you back in overtime.  That’s when an unlikely hero -- offensive lineman Jake Zuzek -- gave you a --

TEAM MEMBERS:  Zu!

THE PRESIDENT:  Zu! -- gave you a 28-21 win when he recovered a fumbled snap in the end zone for his first-ever touchdown.  (Laughter.)  I’m not sure Coach called the fumblerooski, but I bet that Jake will take it anyway.

That set up a winner-take-all game with Army to end the season.  Down three entering the fourth quarter, Keenan again led the comeback, driving the team down the field for 80 yards and the winning score, and showing why he was only the third Navy freshman ever to start at quarterback.  The win gave the Midshipmen their 11th straight victory over Army, which is a series record. 

But at Navy, obviously it’s not just about the wins.  It’s about how you win.  This year, your team motto was INAM, which is short for “It’s Not About Me.”  And that ethic of teamwork and discipline and unselfishness was led by your captains, Bo Snelson and Brye French, and it ran through your entire season.  

All season long you kept your priorities in line, your mission in focus.  Your work in the classroom helped keep the Naval Academy’s graduation rate in the top 10 of the NCAA for the eighth straight year, including linebacker Keegan Wetzel –- a first-team Academic All-American with a 3.89 GPA in systems engineering.  So give Keegan a big round of applause.  I like that.  (Applause.)

And when you faced adversity, you pulled together.  Over Thanksgiving break, freshman Rafi Montalvo was in a serious car accident and doctors pulled him into a coma.  And even though the Army game was next on the schedule, Coach was one of his first visitors at the hospital down in Florida.  And then pretty soon, his teammates started showing up.  When it came time to take the field against your biggest rival, you all put “Rafi” stickers on your helmets and gave him the game ball after your victory.

So, gentlemen, that’s why I have no greater honor than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.  You’re there for each other and you are there for our country.  In just a few weeks when I visit you all for commencement -- and I always have to get ready because Midshipmen, they got strong handshakes, some of them give me chest bumps, I’ve got to just make sure I don’t tip over -- 18 of you will be commissioned as ensigns in the Navy, and 10 more as second lieutenants in the Marine Corps. 

And in the years to come, you will all follow their footsteps.  You’ll be leading your peers in some of the most complex, dangerous missions on the planet.  You’ll be teaching them to pull together, to keep their mission in focus, to always remember that “it’s not about me.”  And together, your victories will not simply be about football trophies -- as impressive as that trophy is -- but it will be about our security and our values and protecting our freedom. 

So I want you to know that I could not be prouder to have each of you representing this great country of ours.  Americans all across the country feel the very same way.  And every single day, we will stand behind you and support you, and do the very best that we can in our own lives to reflect the courage and the honor and the character of the men and women of the United States Naval Academy.  So God bless you.

And with that, let’s -- I understand I’ve got a little something waiting for me.  All right, that’s the official Navy helmet, fitted for me.  (Laughter.)  Pretty sharp.  (Laughter.)  Here’s the general rule:  You don’t put stuff on your head if you’re President.  (Laughter.)  That’s politics 101.  (Laughter.)  You never look good wearing something on your head.  Are we going to -- we’re going to have the coach up here. 

Coach, great to see you again.  (Applause.)

END
2:19 P.M. EDT

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

This week’s address is delivered by Francine Wheeler, whose six year old son, Ben, was murdered alongside nineteen other children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, four months ago. Now, Francine – joined by her husband David – is asking the American people to help prevent this type of tragedy from happening to more families like hers.

Understand how and where your tax dollars are being spent.

President Obama sends a message to the White House email list to explain why he asked Francine Wheeler to deliver the Weekly Address.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions)::In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::'''EDIT''' You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does ''[sic]'' this frequently."  I trust you are familiar with [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm#x3dot3 Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::'''EDIT''' You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does ''[sic]'' this frequently."  I trust you are familiar with [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm#x3dot3 Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)$wgGroupPermissions['*'            ]['createpage'] = false;$wgGroupPermissions['user'        ]['createpage'] = false;$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true;$wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you've taken interest in voter ID just as I have, and I found out this week that the Arkansas Secretary of State has proposed rules to implement Arkansas' new voter ID law. [2]. I'm planning on writing up and submitting comments to fix several issues with the rules, and I was wondering whether you were planning on submitting comments or wanted to see what I am writing. Hopefully, if the rules are fixed as I suggest, the voter ID law should survive federal and state court challenges. Thanks, GregG 13:24, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

That's interesting. I wasn't planning on submitting any comments, but I'd be curious to see what you submit. My own view is that voter ID laws are not as significant as early voting laws.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I think if Conservapedians could spend more time creating content rather than fighting spammers that they would do so if given the opportunity.

Why don't you add the feature to the wiki that fights spammers that Brenden says works great at his wiki?

Here is the informmation:

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. Here is the information for this extention: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I hope this helps. Conservative 10:30, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

User:Conservative reverted my recent edits without explanation and protected the page. Since there is no way to contact U:C and I don't see it likely that there will be fruitful discussion about improving the article about the logical fallacy of quote mining, I would request that the page be unprotected and that U:C work in collegiality with me to improve the page. Thanks, GregG 11:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

There is nothing wrong about quoting the other side and using those quotes to disprove and discredit their position. Some evolutionists pretend there is something wrong with this, yet politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does this frequently.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT) I'm glad you are offering your input, and I should probably explain my changes fully on the talk page. Science, law, theology, politics, mathematics, and philosophy are all different systems for answering questions about our world. Each system has its own rules, so what may be a valid argument in law (citing to binding precedent or quoting an authority) is not necessarily valid in science or math. Likewise, logical deduction from axioms is the main way mathematical results are proven, but it has less utility in the other systems of answering questions. In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article. Thanks, GregG 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does [sic] this frequently." I trust you are familiar with Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. GregG 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Try this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; $wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes


View the original article here

Laura Ingraham: Celebrities Can Talk About Fracking But a Neurosurgeon Can't Discuss Healthcare

Noel Sheppard's picture

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday made a marvelous observation about the media firestorm surrounding Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech last week at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Ingraham said, "We can have celebrities talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues...but the head of pediatric neurosurgery at one of the top hospitals in the world" shouldn't discuss healthcare (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

LAURA INGRAHAM: So we can have celebrities, right, talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues, but we actually have the head of neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, at one of the top hospitals in the world, who gets up on that stage at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he addresses a number of topics, right, but from a common sense, very respectful fashion. He wasn’t mean-spirited. He wasn’t nasty. But the reaction was so profound from the public, thinking, “Why don’t we have politicians who speak in these common sense terms?”

Absurd, but not at all surprising.

Consider the anthropogenic global warming debate.

The media are far more interested in what Al Gore - a man that did terribly in science classes while at Harvard! - and pop star Sheryl Crow have to say on this subject than actual scientists including the over 31,000 that have signed the Oregon Petition.

America's press in 2013 aren't interested in facts or a serious discussion on issues facing the nation.

Instead, the modus operandi is to fill the airwaves and print with nonsensical propaganda while demonizing anyone that deigns to disagree with it.

As Dr. Carson said Monday, "An uneducated populace will fall for anything" including "pundits on television."

(HT Mediaite)


View the original article here

Marijuana

(Difference between revisions)'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places.  In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places.  In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.The [[liberal media]] typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug.  For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" [[Young Mass Murderers|Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]] when he went on his alleged killing rampage.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/The [[Truth|liberal media]] typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug.  For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" [[Young Mass Murderers|Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]] when he went on his alleged killing rampage.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.

Marijuana (colloquially known as "weed" or "pot") is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an organic chemical compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.[1]

The liberal media typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug. For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when he went on his alleged killing rampage.[2]

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see Medical marijuana); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Marijuana contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, thus when smoked it has the same harmful effects including: potential damage to DNA, cancer, respiratory diseases associated with smoke inhilation, and impaired immune system.[3]. However, these effects have not been linked directly to alternate methods of marijuana use. Marijuana use can impair short term memory while intoxicated. THC has slight negative affects on long term memory and thus, in chronic users (approximately 1g/24Hrs)[4], complications with long term memory are a risk. If smoked, marijuana leads to a temporary increase in heart rate and blood pressure while intoxicated. For this reason, there is a slight increase in the risk for heart related problems including heart attack during the time of intoxication[5]. Chronic smokers often suffer from mild withdrawal symptoms, however marijuana is not physically addictive.[6]. Marijuana can impair judgment, motor skills, and balance [7]. Marijuana has also been linked to impaired learning and developmental diability in unborn children [8]

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been shown (in studies) to produce certain psychological and medicinal benefits. Marijuana has been used to treat anorexia and has been used as an antiemetic.[9] Harvard University conducted a study on the effect of ?-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on certain lung cancers. The result of the test was that THC can reduce tumor size by as much as half.[10] In addition to a significant reduction in tumor size, there was a reduction in lesions on the lungs by 60%, and a reduction in protein markers associated with the progression of cancer.[11] This study shows that not only can THC treat the side effects of cancer treatment, but can stop the spread of cancer, repair damage caused by tumors, and even reduce the size of tumors.

In addition to the positive effect on cancer treatment symptoms and cancer itself, marijuana is used to help patients afflicted with ALS[12].

Marijuana is an antispasmodic and is used in the treatment of seizures [13]. Marijuana is also used in the treatment of migraines, arthritis[14], depression[15], and glaucoma. However the effect of marijuana on intraocular pressure (IOC) is not as effective as those offered by other drugs on the market [16].

There have not been many in-depth and widely distributed studies into the possible medicinal effects of marijuana. However, with pressure from liberal advocates of marijuana, more otherwise accredited institutions are conducting research on the drug.

Carl Sagan used recreational marijuana to help "open his mind".[17] Cannabis was first cultivated in China around 4000 B.C.[18] U.S. Declaration of Independence was not written on hemp paper, despite popular belief.[19] George Washington grew marijuana. [20] Alcohol is over 100 times more lethal than marijuana (ratio of lethal dose to effective dose)[21]. President Obama has admitted to use of marijuana. Former President Clinton has also admitted to smoking marijuana, but claims that he 'did not inhale'.

Marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance in the United States of America, meaning that it is illegal under federal law of the United States, and considered to have no redeemable medical value. In several countries, particularly in Western Europe, it is has been decriminalised. However, in many other countries, particularly those in the Middle East and Asia, possession of even small amounts of cannabis can be punishable by death. In 2012, the states of Washington and Colorado adopted voter referenda to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. At the same time, Oregon voters rejected a similar proposition. Federal officials said that they would contest state laws that would legalize marijuana.[22]

The Netherlands decriminalized the use of marijuana in 1976. As a result, marijuana use among the 18-25 age group doubled, however, despite its availability, marijuana use in the Netherlands is lower than the European average. The Netherlands also saw an influx of "drug tourists" and other undesirables, as well as an increase in crime. This has since levelled out, leaving the Netherlands with one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Many liberals have advocated for decriminalization.[23][24]

Many American conservatives, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form due to its perceived harmful medical and psychological effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving. A few libertarian-leaning conservatives, most notably Ron Paul, William F. Buckley, and Larry Elder, have advocated the decriminalization of this drug. Some liberals support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. Libertarians are usually the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization. Gary Johnson, a former Republican and 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate for President, is the highest ranking US politician to advocate for marijuana legalization. He was a two-term Governor of New Mexico.

? The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places. In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/? Science Daily 6/9/2009? AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana? AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana? Psychology Today: Is Marijuana Addictive?? [1]? Neuropsycopharmacology: High-Potency Marijuana Impairs Executive Function and Inhibitory Motor Control? National Cancer Institute? Science Daily 4/7/2007? Science Daily 4/17/2007? American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine? National Academies Press: Marijuana and muscle spasticity? Online Library: Treatment of adjuvant arthritis in rats with anti-inflammatory drugs? Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana? National Eye Institue: Glaucoma and Marijuana use? Boing Boing: Carl Sagan Spaced Out? Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana? Constitutional FAQ Answer #145 - U.S. Constitution Online? The President and the Cabinet: George Washington the Man? Wikipedia: Tetrahydrocannabinol? Dobuzinskis, Alex. "Marijuana legalization victories could be short-lived", Nov 7, 2012. Retrieved on November 8, 2012. ? Law Enforcement Against Prohibition? http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

View the original article here

Obamacare and Taxes - Curtis Dubay on Willis Report

Recorded on November 25, 2012

Senior Policy Analyst Curtis Dubay discusses how Obamacare and taxes are fueling our struggling economy on Willis Report.


View the original article here

Obamacare: An Alarming Checkup

OK, Obamacare. Up on the table. It’s time for your annual physical.

Three years old, eh? Well, with any luck, you’ll leave here with a clean bill of uh-oh. I can see one problem already. Have you seen these tax hikes?

Let’s see — five, 10, 15, 18 tax hikes in all. That hardly seems wise, considering the fragile health of the economy, but there they are.

There’s the tax on individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. That will cost $55 billion over the next decade. I also see a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It’ll be $111 billion for that between 2018 and 2022. Several smaller ones, such as limiting the amount people can set aside in their flexible spending accounts: $4.5 billion there from 2011 to 2022.

It all adds up, Obamacare. It’s not healthy.

Hate to tell you this, but it gets worse. See this? That’s the number of people who are going to lose their current health insurance because of you. Not thousands, but 7 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This isn’t guesswork; it’s already happening.

Take Universal Orlando, which recentlyannounced that it won’t continue to cover its part-time workers. Why? Not because they’re coldhearted, but because they can’t afford it. Your prohibition of annual benefit limits beginning next year is making Universal’s health plans too expensive. The word is, this will affect about 500 Universal employees.

Or consider the American Veterinary Medical Association in Illinois. “[M]edical coverage will end for some 17,500 association members and thousands of their dependents at year’s end,” the group says in a news release. There are many more to come, from other employers. Ouch.

Wait. Obamacare, didn’t you say that nobody who liked his current plan would lose it? Yes. You promised it, in fact — repeatedly. I’d better note that in your chart.

You may be getting uncomfortable, but we’re not done yet. Over here, there’s another serious problem: You’re hurting hiring — and right at a time when the economy could use all the help it can get to reduce unemployment.

You don’t believe it? Look at the “Beige Book,” a report that the Federal Reserve publishes eight times a year detailing the economic activity in the Fed’s 12 regions. According to its most recent report: “Employers in several districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”

“Affordable Care Act.” That’s you.

There’s more. It’s a good thing you’re sitting down. It turns out you’re making it more difficult to access Medicare services.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but this is right from the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s own trustees. They’ve shown what you don’t want to admit: You’re raiding Medicare to pay for other new programs.

Payment rates for Medicare Advantage: down $156 billion over the next decade. Home health services: down $66 billion. Hospice services: down $17 billion. The biggest one is hospital services, which you cut by $260 billion. What’s that? No, the cuts do not target medical institutions or organizations suspected of waste, fraud or abuse. Nice try.

Finally, I see that insurance premiums are going to skyrocket under you. It’s those coverage mandates you put in place; they’re the culprit. According to a congressional report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, some premiums are set to rise in every state. Yes, every state, and not by small amounts. In many states, they’re primed to go up by more than 50 percent; in others, by more than 100 percent. It’s all as a result of changes you’ve introduced.

This despite your claim that your law would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” That sure isn’t working out, is it?

You can pay the receptionist on your way out. No, I’m afraid we don’t accept that insurance plan anymore.

-Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

First appeared in The Washington Times.


View the original article here

User:TheTruthIsHere


View the original article here

Cal Thomas Column: Contraception Mandate Is Wrong Because Government Shouldn't Define What Is and Isn't a Church

Cal Thomas's picture

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of "Obamacare" will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.

One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate." That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees' health care, "preventive services," including "morning-after" pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby's appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to "...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act." (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby's appeals continue.

The core issue as I see it -- and there are others -- is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.

Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.

The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.

In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would "dwell" in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, "I am going to church," it is an impossibility because they can't go to themselves.

The administration's efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.

That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)


View the original article here

The Affordable Care Act Negatively Impacts the Supply of Labor

Labor market distortions are common within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/Obamacare). Employers are faced with uncertainty at every turn. As observed from the recently released Federal Reserve beige book, this uncertainty restrains hiring.[1]

While substantial attention has been given to the employer side, the employee side also experiences many distortionary effects. Some of these distortions include incentives to reduce hours, not seek work, drop insurance coverage, drop dependent coverage, become divorced, or avoid marriage. It is apparent that Obamacare’s effects extend far past the number of employees a business will employ, or how many hours a week an employee will be allowed to work.

Obamacare Taxes and the Supply of Labor

Obamacare will negatively affect the reward to work for many workers, as noted by University of Chicago economist, Casey Mulligan. According to Mulligan, “The net result of all of this will be to reduce employment, especially among less skilled people.”[2]  Many individuals will be left facing tough decisions on whether or not to take a higher paying job or losing thousands of dollars in health care subsidies.[3]

When an individual faces higher tax rates, if they currently have a job, they may roll back on hours worked. Subsidies also have this sort of effect. According to Mulligan, “The [Affordable Care Act’s] subsidies will sharply reduce the financial reward to working because they will be phased out with household income.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also agrees, stating, “The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effective increases beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.” The CBO found that the legislation would reduce amount of labor by half a percent.[4]  

Under the Affordable Care Act’s system of subsidies, as an individual makes more money, they are rewarded by losing subsidies. This creates a calculation that each person must make—whether or not to strive to increase their personal household income through working more or getting a better job, or choosing to stay in a similar place in life in order to keep the benefits.

In November 2012, the CBO estimated the increase in marginal tax rates due to Obamacare, adding evidence to Mulligan’s claim. According to the CBO, the introduction of the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies would increase marginal tax rates for more individuals. Populations that have Medicaid face marginal tax rates above 75 percent in many instances. In terms of exchange subsides, for income between 100 percent and 133 percent of the poverty level, tax rates increase by 2 percent. For income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, increases vary between 9.5 percent and 18 percent.[5]

Compared to previous law, individuals now experience even higher marginal tax rates from the ability to garnish health care subsidies at lower income. Obamacare ultimately discourages low income individuals from trying to move into higher paying jobs on the margin.

Low-wage workers are especially affected, because they are most responsive to higher tax rates or lower subsidies. The CBO believes that low-income workers have higher labor elasticies.[6] Low income workers will respond to changes in tax rates more intensely on the margin than individuals with higher incomes. Not only are marginal rates higher, but lower income individuals are expected to respond more vigorously to the changes. This effect could be further exasperated through the incentives for employers to drop coverage to lowering income employees.[7]

Dependent Coverage and Obamacare’s Treatment of Marriage

Several analysts point out that Obamacare develops a marriage penalty.[8] Simply put, individuals lose subsidies if they choose to marry without any change to earnings. Representative Darrel Issa (R­–CA) points out a simple explanation and example: “The result of linking the tax credit to the federal poverty level is that two individuals who make between $61,600 and $91,200 in 2014 will not benefit from the tax credit if they decide to marry.”

While this example only shows one case, it is true that most individuals that previously obtained exchange subsidies would lose some subsidies when becoming married. For a couple that has two individual earners between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, choosing to get married would experience further increases in effective marginal tax rates—between 10 percent and 24 percent.[9]

The extension of dependent coverage in Obamacare attacks the labor market from several angles. First, young adults are discouraged from entering the labor force due to the law’s implementation. Heritage analysis shows that individuals can be as much as 15 percent more unlikely to be part of the labor force after the dependent coverage provision went into effect.[10]

This behavior makes the most sense for low-income earners where the benefit will be relatively large compared to the wage earned. While it is not necessarily true that a young adult would lose their dependent coverage upon getting a job of their own, this consideration could be coming into play, as well as a general decision to utilize the benefit to stay in school, or pursue other activities.

A second effect, as outlined in a previous Heritage Issue Brief, outlines the incentive for individuals dropping their own name coverage for dependent coverage.[11] Ultimately, this leads to increased incentives for employers to drop coverage, either by pushing employees to the exchanges indirectly or paying the penalty and adjusting benefits accordingly.

Labor Market Distortions Still to Come

Obamacare distorts incentives for employees to make positive changes in the labor market. Employees are encouraged to keep lower paying jobs in order to preserve subsidies, while also being encouraged to remain single, leave the labor force, or even not participate in the labor force.

While many economists and officials suggest that the Affordable Care Act will not result in drastic labor market distortions when it is fully implemented, basic economic evaluation of the situation shows that these distortions will occur. If the most recent Federal Reserve beige book’s further revelations about slow labor market recovery is any foreshadowing to what is to come, the United States labor market is in for rude surprise in the coming years.[12]

—Drew Gonshorowski is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


[10]Analysis Conducted by Author in Forthcoming Brief.

[12]Federal Reserve District, “Current Economic Conditions.”


View the original article here

Liberal

(Difference between revisions)* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption* Giving power to socialist labor unions rather than developing the economy* Economic sector regulationshttp://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs* Economic sector regulationshttp://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs* Spreading of [[political correctness]]* Spreading of [[political correctness]]Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00 or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00 or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."First, Labor unions in the U.S., which are a key ally of liberals and their big government plans, were heavily infiltrated by Communist spies and sympathizers since the 1920's. Next, Liberal President Franklin D. Roosevelt's unsuccessful New Deal was inspired by European Socialism, much like the Soviets. In addition, Alger Hiss, who was a Communist spy, worked in the U.S. Department of State under Roosevelt. In addition, Senator Joe McCarthy, a conservative who rooted out Communist infiltrators in the 1950's, was denounced by liberal Communist sympathizers. In the 1980's, Conservative President Ronald Reagan's confrontational policy of "rollback' against the Soviet Union was opposed by liberals who supported the evil empire. Recently, our current President, who has been raised a liberal Communist, seeks to "spread [job creators'] wealth around".==Liberals and Uncharitableness====Liberals and Uncharitableness==

A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as censorship of Christianity. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage". Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. They prefer atheism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.[1]

A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:

Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies) Government's ability to solve economic problems[2] The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy [3] Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events. Gun control Anti-Americanism Affirmative action[4] Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right[5] Communism Government-funded medical care, such as Obamacare Belief in evolution Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on. Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the military Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption Tax and spend economics Economic sector regulations[6] Spreading of political correctness Destroying liberty Ending Western morality Non-syndicalist labor unions Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex[7] A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended. Government programs to rehabilitate criminals Abolition of the death penalty Environmentalism[8] Globalism Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Opposition to full private property rights.[9] Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively. Denial of traditional gender roles Support of financially irresponsible policies Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect Encouragement of global warming alarmism Persecution of Christianity with deference to other religions, such as Islam.

Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as Obamacare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"[10] or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."[11] In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

For more information please see: Liberals and uncharitableness and Atheism and charity

In March of 2008, George Will wrote at RealClearPolitics concerning the United States:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.[13]

Atheists and agnostics often reject Biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism.[14] Therefore, it is not surprising that per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.[8][9][10]

The political magazine the American Spectator featured an article which focused on liberal politicians and uncharitableness exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.[15]

In addition, Barack Obama has been criticized concerning his lack of charitable giving.

See also: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity and Liberal Christianity

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[16]

As noted above, liberals are more likely to adhere to evolutionary belief than conservatives. A study conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.[17]

See also: Liberalism and bestiality

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia)[19]. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: Liberalism and bestiality).[20] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. [21] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[22]

Joe Carter's First Things article entitled The Dangerous Mind declares concerning Peter Singer declared:

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).[23]

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: Homosexuality and bestiality).[24]

In 2010, the liberal state of Washington has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: Washington state and bestiality).[25][26][27]

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of Massachusetts tried to soften its bestiality laws.[28]

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[30] The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and marriageability and Atheism and health).

For more information please see:

See also: Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.[31]

Below is an excerpt of the chant:

Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].[32] 2384975035 230a0eac30.jpg

The Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. [33]

Also, in September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience, such as evolution than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.[34]

Smear merchants.jpg

Democrats and most media outlets in the U.S. are blatantly liberal.[35] Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following acronym: SIN. Liberals (1) shift the subject, they (2) ignore the facts, and they (3) name call.[36][37]

Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of fascism. [38] There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. [39]

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings[40] of how liberal each member of the United States Congress is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

See also: American atheism and Decline of atheism and Global atheism

Due to the explosive growth of global Christianity in traditional cultures and their influence on Western Christianity and the higher birth rate of conservative Christians and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.[41]

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves liberal are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe[42] is a party of the European Parliament that represents most liberal parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many liberal parties throughout the world,[43] such as the Liberal Party of Australia.[44]

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or neoliberals. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democratic parties.[45]

In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.[46]

Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with conservative values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.

See Classical Liberalism. Compare Libertarianism.

See also: Infamous liberals

Source: The Politix Group

"I never use the words Democrats and Republicans. It's liberals and Americans." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan

? http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? The Warren Court, led by liberal Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren issued 36 decisions granting First Amendment rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.? http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs? Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding, Fox News, Monday, June 25, 2007? and environmental organizations, for example Greenpeace? For example, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court issued the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html? http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1? Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?? Morals decline linked to evolution? ? ? ? The Basis of a Christian Worldview? The Basis of a Christian Worldview? The Dangerous Mind by Joe Carter, First Things? The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph? Pet Abuse -2010? 2010 United States Census data? 2011 Political map - CNN? [Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]? Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive? A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.? The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far? The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far? [1]? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html? Media Bias basics. Media Research Center.? Scott Baker. Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?, The Blaze, February 12, 2011.? YouTube. Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America", February 11, 2011.? Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg..? Liberal Values in Legal Education Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)? http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm? Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?? http://www.alde.eu? http://www.liberal-international.org/? [2]? [3]? "Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [4] ? http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view¤t=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4? http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527

View the original article here