theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Friday, August 31, 2012

Mitt Romney flies to Louisiana to view storm damage

By Philip Rucker, Jerry Markonand, Amy Gardner

KENNER, La. — Just days after Hurricane Isaac made landfall in Louisiana, the intensifying presidential campaign arrived in full force Friday as Mitt Romney toured damaged areas, his visit drawing attacks from several leading Democrats who said his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan had tried to block disaster relief funds last fall.
   The White House announced Friday that President Obama would visit the area on Monday, moving both campaigns more deeply into the politics of disaster relief. It’s an issue that once tripped up President George W. Bush, who was pilloried for his reaction to 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.


Romney made his trip the day after the Republican National Convention; Obama’s visit will come the day before the Democrats’ convention, raising concerns that both sides were using Louisiana as a political photo opportunity.

   “It is the height of hypocrisy for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to make a pretense of showing sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Isaac when their policies would leave those affected by this disaster stranded and on their own,’’ Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) added: “It is an affront for Mitt Romney to go to Louisiana given what the Ryan budget would have meant for our emergency preparedness.”
   Stuart Stevens, Romney’s top political strategist, dismissed the criticism. “The thought never occurred to me that it would be inappropriate to come and see people,” Stevens told reporters in Louisiana, noting that Romney has been in touch with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R), and came to Louisiana at Jindal’s invitation.
    Asked whether it was important for Romney to visit the Gulf Coast area before Obama, Stevens said that was not a factor. “The convention’s over, this is happening,’’ Stevens said. “Now it’s not as disruptive because it’s not in the middle of the storm.’’
   Obama planned to visit Louisiana on Monday “to meet with local officials and view ongoing response and recovery efforts to Hurricane Isaac,” the White House said. Because of that trip, Obama canceled a planned campaign visit to Cleveland on Monday as part of a tour of swing states ahead of the Sept. 4-6 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. But he was sticking with the rest of a three-day trip starting Saturday to Iowa, Colorado and Toledo, Ohio.
   White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Friday aboard Air Force One that Obama’s trip to Louisiana was planned before Romney announced his own visit to the state. “Obviously when you’re president of the United States, coordinating travel carries with it unique logistical challenges,” Carney said. “It was the assessment of the president’s team working with all the people involved in operations as well as people on the ground that Monday was a good day.”
On Friday, Romney met with residents of the town of Lafitte who were affected by the damage and, with his wife Ann, briefly spoke with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) .

Texas voter ID ruling based on 'faked' data!

   Again, any attempts by the states to insure voter ID's gets knocked down by Federal judges. One might assume a person's voter rights should be just as important to safeguard as a driver's license, but not to this administration, or the DOJ that has become the political arm of Obama's re-election by fraud.
   Data supplied by no other than NYU's Brennen Center, the hot bed of social engineering and proven biased by other Research groups. It's is really time to "drain the swamp" with an Obama defeat in November.
theodore miraldi

by Aaron Klein


TAMPA, Fla. – A radical group that has a history of biased research provided data utilized in a federal case in which the court yesterday blocked a new voter ID law in Texas, ruling the state failed to show that the law would not harm the voting rights of minorities, WND has learned.
The voter ID data collected by the group, the Brennan Center for Justice, has been called into question by experts and has been contradicted by other credible studies.
Yet the center was heavily instrumental in opposing the voter ID law in Texas, including providing key data to the Justice Department and to the organizations behind the lawsuit against the law.
The three-judge panel in the landmark Texas case reportedly ruled that evidence showed that costs of obtaining a voter ID would fall most heavily on poor African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas and that such groups would face discrimination if the law were to be applied.
See a reminder about Obama’s record – and plans, and get the details on what advisers are telling him to do if he is re-elected.
It was the second time voter ID laws were shot down in the U.S. In December, the Justice Department rejected the South Carolina voter ID law, also citing purported evidence minorities would be disenfranchised by the requirement to show photo identification to cast a ballot. That marked the first time that a voting law was refused clearance by Justice in nearly 20 years.
The Justice Department and attorneys representing the NAACP and ACLU were behind the lawsuit in South Carolina arguing against voter ID.
WND has found the Brennan Center’s data played a central role in both the Texas and South Carolina cases.
In the case of Texas, Brennan provided the Department of Justice with its research claiming to show how minorities were affected by voter ID laws.
That information was seemingly incorporated in a letter from the Justice Department to Texas election officials requesting more information about the potential impact that the new photo ID requirement might have on minority voters.
After the Texas election commission replied, the Justice Department issued a final letter denying preclearance of voter ID laws. That letter mimicked the information provided to Justice by the Brennan center.
Brennan played a similar role in providing Justice with information used in the South Carolina case, according to documentation reviewed by WND.
That documentation includes the letter to the Department of Justice from the ACLU, the Brennan Center, and the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
WND also reviewed the Justice Department’s letters to the South Carolina attorney general’s office eventually denying preclearance of the voter ID laws, finding key information from Brennan incorporated in that documentation.
Brennan further provided the ACLU and NAACP with its data to use in the South Carolina and Texas arguments.
Voter ID data biased?
The Brennan Center is located at New York University School of Law. Its primary focus is so-called voting rights and creating a “living constitution” as well as pushing for a “living wage.”
In November 2006, the Brennan Center issued “Citizens Without Proof,” an extensive report that claimed voter ID policies will disfranchise millions of minority, elderly and low-income voters because those voting blocs are less likely to possess documentation than the general population.
The report is routinely cited by news media and activists seeking to prove voter ID is racist. Earlier this week, MSNBC featured two segments citing the Brennan Center information as evidence the GOP is attempting to block minorities from voting by pushing ID laws.
Articles this week by the Huffington Post, Bloomberg News and the Baltimore Sun also cited the Brennan research.
The National Center for Public Policy Research notes that in its report on voter ID measures, the NAACP “relied heavily” on Brennan Center’s work.
Also last month, Politifact used the Brennan Center’s 2006 report to support Attorney General Eric Holder’s claim that 25 percent of African-Americans lack government-issued photo ID., a website run by the National Center for Public Policy Research, recently posted a new profile of the Brennan Center that documents how its voter ID information is highly questionable and may be based on biased data.
In August 2011, Hans A. von Spakovsky and Alex Ingram of the Heritage Foundation critiqued the Brennan report, finding it is “both dubious in its methodology and results and suspect in its sweeping conclusions.”
According to the Heritage Foundation report, the Brennan Center used biased questioning to obtain its desired result concerning minority voters – a result that is actually contradicted by footnotes buried in the Brennan report itself.
“By eschewing many of the traditional scientific methods of data collection and analysis, the authors of the Brennan Center study appear to have pursued results that advance a particular political agenda rather than the truth about voter identification,” write Von Spakovsky and Ingram.
Heritage points out that the Brennan Center’s report was based entirely on one survey of only 987 “voting age American citizens.” However the report contained no information on how the survey determined whether a respondent was actually an American citizen.
Heritage found the Brennan survey used the responses of the 987 individuals to estimate the number of Americans without valid documentation based on the 2000 Census calculations of citizen voting-age population. Those Census figures, noted Heritage, “contain millions of U.S. residents who are ineligible to vote, thus contributing to the study’s overestimation of voters without a government-issued identification.”
Heritage charged the survey questions used in the Brennan Center’s report “are also suspect and appear to be designed to bolster the report’s biased findings.”
Brennan, for example, did not ask respondents whether they had government-issued IDs, but instead asked whether respondents had “readily available identification.”
“By asking whether such ID could be found ‘quickly’ or shown ‘tomorrow,’ the study seems to be trying to elicit a particular response: that those surveyed do not have ID,” noted Heritage.
The Brennan study is undermined by some of its own footnotes.
One footnote states that “[t]he survey did not yield statistically significant results for differential rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identified demographic factors.” That footnote appears to contradict the very premise of the Brennan report.
Another footnote relates that 135 respondents “indicated that they had both a U.S. birth certificate and U.S. naturalization papers. This most likely indicates confusion on the part of the respondents.” In other words, Heritage notes, nearly 14 percent of the respondents provided contradictory answers.
The Brennan study further did not ask any of its participants whether they had student or tribal ID cards even though in some states like Arizona and Georgia, such cards are acceptable for the purpose of voting.
Heritage cited numerous studies that directly contradict the Brennan report, studies not widely cited by the news media in the voter ID debate.
Such studies include:
  • An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID. Therefore, the study correctly concluded that “a photo ID as a requirement of voting does not appear to be a serious problem in any of the states.”
  • A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample – less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement.
Look who funds Brennan
Besides receiving a reported $7.4 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute since 2000, the Brennan Center was also the recipient of grants from the Joyce Foundation from 2000 to 2003. President Obama served on the Joyce board from 1994 through 2002.
History of shoddy research
Brennan has a history of questionable research.
The center was at the heart of a national scandal in 2002 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act. The attorneys defending McCain-Feingold had reportedly based key portions of their case on research provided by the Brennan Center – research, Discover the Networks notes, that may have been “deliberately faked,” according to Weekly Standard Editor David Tell.
Tell quoted Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno admitting in his funding proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of his group’s proposed study on campaign finance was for partisan political reasons.
Wrote Tell: “‘Issue Advocacy: Amassing the Case for Reform,’ dated February 19, 1999, explained that ‘[t]he purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward.’ Dispassionate academic inquiry was so alien to the spirit of the thing that Brennan promised to suspend its work midstream, pre-publication, if the numbers turned out wrong. ‘Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.’”
Tell claimed Brennan researchers “deliberately faked” their results.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Holder against women, and right to vote....

    One of the Pillars of Democracy, fictional, or not, has been the right to
vote. It's what our system calls a privilege, so much so, that it took women from
1848 to finally gain the right to vote in 1920.

   Women, the backbone of American culture and society fought hard during

the Women's Suffrage Movement to cast a ballot.
   Might it be prudent for the DOJ and Eric Holder to review, both the 15th
Amendment giving blacks the right to vote and 1964 Civil Rights actions guaranteeing
them that right. 

   The premise of one person, one vote is tantamount to a successful democracy.
How can it be possible that Mexico has stricter requirements to vote than the US. One
thing for certain, Eric Holder is an injustice to fair elections.

   Allowing fraud and sitting Al Franken in the Senate who was the recipient of 1099 votes

from convicted felons while only ahead by a few hundreded votes, is the perfect

example of committing fraud against your country.

Franken was the deciding vote for the Affordable Care Act (Obama-Care).

theodore miraldi

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

President Obama’s claim that insurance premiums ‘will go down’

by Glenn Kessler

The Fact Checker...

(William Woody — Associated Press)

   “The other thing we’ve done is to say, what are the critical needs of small business? A lot of time, one of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you, as a sole proprietor, that you can get health insurance for you and your family. So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it. You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”
— President Obama, campaign speech in Cincinnati, July 16, 2012
   President Obama has embraced the phrase “Obamacare,” once originally intended as an epithet by the heath-care law’s opponents, but we were a bit surprised the other day when he declared that health insurance premiums were going to go down.
   We have previously dinged Republicans for claiming that premiums have already gone up because of the law. And we have noted the president made what we called a “foolish, dubious” campaign promise with a huge asterisk — that premiums would be $2,500 lower than they would have been without the law.
   But, here, the president is claiming that premiums actually will go down for people in the individual and small group markets. The health-care law is obviously a work in progress but are there data that back up this sweeping claim?

The Facts

   Since the law has not taken full effect yet, we have to rely on studies that estimate the potential impact. A 2011 White House report, using Congressional Budget Office data, argues some small businesses (ie, sole proprietors with employees) will have access to a new marketplace where they can compare benefits and services and find a plan that works for them. The theory is that these new exchanges will help drive down costs for businesses.
   For instance, the White House report says the CBO estimates that small employers will experience decreased premiums of up to 2 percent. The report, also citing CBO, also claims that individuals purchasing coverage on the exchanges would see premium savings of 14 to 20 percent when compared to the purchase of the same policy without the law.
Sounds great, right? But the law also mandates a number of significant changes that many experts believe will put upward pressure on premiums. There are potentially important policy reasons for each of these changes. But remember, you usually don’t get something for nothing.
Here are some of the key factors:
1.Currently insurance companies offer lower premiums to younger Americans, since they generally have lower health costs. But starting in 2014, the law implements an age band so that the amount an older individual pays will be no more than three times what a younger individual pays. So if a state currently allows an age band of 5:1, older Americans might see a premium decrease — but younger Americans would see a premium spike.
2.A similar dynamic exists with the law’s requirement that insurers selling policies through the health exchanges will no longer be able to charge different premiums based on a person’s health status when coverage is first purchased. This is known as a community rating. So healthier individuals generally will see higher premiums.
3. The popular provision that requires insurers to accept everyone regardless of their health status (i.e., pre-existing conditions) also will transfer costs to healthier individuals.
4. Insurers must offer an “essential health benefits” package, providing coverage in 10 categories. The list includes: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
It’s a great package, but the benefits are more extensive than what most individuals and small businesses already purchase. So that will also boost premiums, especially if you currently have a less extensive plan. A report in the June edition of Health Affairs found that “more than half of Americans who had individual insurance in 2010 were enrolled in plans that would not qualify as providing essential coverage under the rules of the exchanges in 2014.”
5.The law also contains various taxes and fees, including a health insurance tax. Those costs presumably would be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher premiums.
Every legislative change has winners and losers. All things being equal, the list above suggests some of the biggest losers would be the young and healthy, though Americans might believe that is a fair price to pay — because eventually people become old and unhealthy. (A study for the state of Ohio found a healthy young man would experience a rate increase of 90 to 130 percent while a 60-year-old with chronic health conditions would see a significant premium decrease.) Moreover, the law provides subsidies to low-income people, so the effect of premium increases on that population may be mitigated.
There have been several national and state studies, conducted by credible analysts, that have attempted to calculate the impact of these changes on premiums.
The good news is that there would be a significant expansion of people with health insurance. And, after tax subsidies, many people may experience premium decreases. One could argue that overall there are more winners than losers.
But the bad news is that, on average, premiums almost certainly will go up — with some people really getting hit with increases. “Based on the analysis of the individual market, there is a concern for rate shock to a material portion of the population,” a report for Rhode Island said. “The individuals who currently are qualified for preferred rates will be seeing large increases in their healthcare premiums if they do not qualify for premium subsidies.”
Here’s a summary of the research:
A nationwide studyconducted by Milliman Inc. for the Society of Actuaries found that nationwide the premiums in the individual market would increase from 8 to 37 percent in 2014 — with a cumulative increase of as much as 122 percent between 2013 and 2017.
Indiana determined the law would boost premiums in the individual market on average by 75 to 95 percent and in the small employer market by 5-10 percent in 2014.
Ohio found rates would go up 55 to 85 percent above current rates, before tax credits.
Minnesota concluded that individual market premiums will increase between 26 to 42 percent
Maine said individual premiums will increase on average by 40 percent and premiums in the small group market are likely to increase 8 to 9 percent. About 20 percent of the individual market would still experience premium increases even after subsidies.
Maryland concluded individual premiums will go up on average by 34 to 36 percent and in the small employer market on average by 2 percent
Wisconsin found that before tax credits, the average premium increase in the individual market will be 30 percent.
Colorado said individual premiums will go up on average 19 percent.
Rhode Island found that before tax subsidies, premiums for individuals will increase on average by 8 percent.
   So how does the White House report present such a rosy outlook, using data from the Congressional Budget Office? It tends to highlight the favorable data and ignore or play down CBO findings that undercut its argument.
So, yes, the CBO says 57 percent of the people in the exchanges will get tax subsidies, but that means 43 percent will not, and thus would not be able to offset any increase in premiums. The CBO also said that subsidies would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premiums.
   Moreover, the CBO makes clear that average premiums would be 27 to 30 percent higher because the law demands greater insurance coverage (page 6). The CBO emphasized that those provisions, along with others, “ would have a much greater effect on premiums in the nongroup [individual] market than in the small group market, and they would have no measurable effect on premiums in the large group market.” On page 11 of the report, the CBO notes in a headline: “A    Greater Actuarial Value Would Increase Nongroup Premiums.”
   The law’s backers, however, believe that over time, increased insurance coverage for more Americans will make the health-care system more efficient and ultimately reduce costs.
   But that is far in the future. The report for Wisconsin, for instance, concluded that a majority of the individuals in the non-group market would pay more in premiums in 2016 than they pay today — both before and after tax credits are applied.
   Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who advised the administration on the health-care law and co-authored the Wisconsin, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota studies, said the president’s comment was “a bit too sweeping. What we know is that for individuals the majority in most states (Wisconsin is the only exception I know of so far) will see premiums fall after tax-credits. For small firms it is less clear.”

The Pinocchio Test

   The president asserted that because of the law, small business and individual premiums “will go down.” But the reality is much more complicated than that.
   The law’s provisions, especially the requirement for essential benefits, will almost certainly increase premiums, though tax subsidies will help mitigate the impact for a little over half of the people in the exchanges. But a lot of other people — such as a young male who currently has a plan that does not include all of the required benefits — are likely going to have sticker shock when they see what happens to their premiums starting in 2014.
  As we said, you don’t get something for nothing. And the president should be more careful about suggesting that is the case, especially when discussing a complex law with still-uncertain ramifications.
Three Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook.
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios

Ann Romney offers the human side of Mitt Romney

By Caroline May

TAMPA, Fla. — In a bright red outfit, Ann Romney greeted the Republican National Convention delegates and attendees Tuesday night.

   To a smattering shouts of “We love you Ann,” the aspiring first lady spoke of the love she has for her husband, family, and country.
“Tonight I want to talk to you about love,” Romney said.
“I want to talk to you about the deep and abiding love I have for a man I met at a dance many years ago. And the profound love I have, and I know we share, for this country,” she continued. “I want to talk to you about that love so deep only a mother can fathom it — the love we have for our children and our children’s children.”
   Romney quickly got to her central point. Women make the country run and it is women who feel the brunt of the pain when times are hard. As a woman, Romney relayed her understanding.
   “Sometimes I think that late at night, if we were all silent for just a few moments and listened carefully, we could hear a great collective sigh from the moms and dads across America who made it through another day, and know that they’ll make it through another one tomorrow,” she said. “But in that end of the day moment, they just aren’t sure how.”
   “And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men. It’s how it is, isn’t it? It’s the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right,” she said.
   To Romney — who suffered criticism earlier this year by an Obama surrogate for “never work[ing] a day in her life,” as a mother — it is moms, sisters, daughters, grandmothers who keep America together.
   “It’s the moms of this nation — single, married, widowed — who really hold this country together. We’re the mothers, we’re the wives, we’re the grandmothers, we’re the big sisters, we’re the little sisters, we’re the daughters,” she said. “You know it’s true, don’t you?”
“You’re the ones who always have to do a little more,” she said.
Noting that it is women who are the caregivers, homework helpers, problem solvers, and nostalgia sufferers.
   “You are the best of America. You are the hope of America. There would not be an America without you,” she said. “Tonight, we salute you and sing your praises. I’m not sure if men really understand this, but I don’t think there’s a woman in America who really expects her life to be easy. In our own ways, we all know better!”
From her focus on women on a macro level, Romney transitioned to her own story with Mitt Romney.
   “I could tell you why I fell in love with him — he was tall, laughed a lot, was nervous — girls like that, it shows the guy’s a little intimidated — and he was nice to my parents but he was really glad when my parents weren’t around,” she said noting he made her laugh.
   To Romney, who detailed briefly her upbringing as the granddaughter of a Welsh coal miner and daughter of an immigrant who started his own business — “one he built himself, by the way” — Romney touched of her husband’s father’s success from carpenter to Michigan governor and her courtship with Mitt Romney.
   “When Mitt and I met and fell in love, we were determined not to let anything stand in the way of our life together. I was an Episcopalian. He was a Mormon,” she said. “We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn’t care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days.”
NEXT: 'Still in love with that boy'
Read more:

MSNBC abandons GOP convention during every speech by a minority

By Jeff Poor

   One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.


If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.
   In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.
  Throughout this convention, Matthews has accused the Republicans of playing dog-whistle racist politics while on scene in Tampa. It isn’t clear, however, if Matthews will hurl accusations of racism at Davis, Love or Cruz for speeches his network failed to broadcast.

Read more:

A sad farewell to the U.S. Constitution...

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley calls GOP treasonous for eligibility inaction...

   The U.S. Constitution was a magnificent document. In that long, hot Philadelphia summer, your Founding Fathers thoughtfully debated the instrument of your freedom – a document that inspires all of us who no longer live in the knowledge that the only people who can impose laws or taxes upon us are those whom we have elected.
   In today’s Europe, we are ruled by faceless Kommissars elected by none, accountable to none, removable by none. By contrast, the United States is still, in Walt Whitman’s memorable phrase, “the athletic democracy.” Or, rather, it was.
For your governing class has cravenly abandoned the Constitution. Faced with one of the most flagrant and persisting breaches of that great charter of freedom in your nation’s history, they totter fightless from the field.
This is what your Constitution says:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
No ifs. No buts. This is the ancient and sensible ius soli: you are a citizen of the nation on whose soil you were born. Not born here? Go and play president somewhere else.
   There is no room in this column to point out all of the obvious defects in Mr. Obama’s transparently forged “birth certificate.” I have summarized them in a briefing for my Peers. Get it from Forgery has been committed. The fraudsters should be locked up forever.
   But the real criminals are those in high office who know Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery but willfully, sullenly do absolutely nothing about it.
   Mr. Romney made a joke of the bogus birth certificate and then, characteristically, flip-flopped and apologized. He should certainly have apologized – not for drawing attention to the issue but for making a joke of it, and for failing to ensure behind the scenes that a credible, properly organized, fully funded legal challenge to the Manchurian Candidate’s right to appear on the ballot against him is vigorously pursued.
But no. Let’s crack a limp joke, limply apologize and limply lose the election.
   Those who say the political debate should confine itself to the issues of national bankruptcy, illegal immigration, assaults upon liberty by liberals and attacks upon democracy by “Democrats” are right. Mr. Romney should have acted in private. There was no call for him to say a word in public about his shifty opponent’s shifting allegiances: until 2007 a self-proclaimed son of the Kenyan soil, born in Mombasa; then, in the 2008 presidential race, a natural-born U.S. citizen born in Hawaii, brought up in Indonesia, registered for Social Security in Connecticut (where he has never lived) and holding a Selective Service record with a forged two-digit year-stamp.
   In Britain, if the prime minister put a forged document on the Web, the media would give him no mercy until he had been shamed into opening up the original document to independent forensic scrutiny.
Not in today’s America.
   I asked a senior Republican attorney what he thought. He became hysterical and said: “Don’t touch the issue. Birthers are pointy-heads. They will draw you in. Your reputation will be ruined. Really.”
Never mind the reputation of his country and yours. Never mind the Constitution he had sworn to uphold. As Sir John Hoskyns, first head of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, used to say: “Nations fail when people find it safer to get on with their mates than to get on with the job.”
   It is the job of every presidential candidate to uphold the Constitution and be seen to uphold it. The “Democrats,” who no longer care for democracy and are doing much to destroy it, can be counted upon to exploit the fact that the Republicans no longer care for the republic or the Constitution that defines it.
   I made one simple point to my Republican friend. It’s your Constitution. Amend it, or abide by it. Uphold it, or lose it. I asked him, “Are you really willing to insist that your Constitution no longer matters, and to scrap a key provision inserted at the instance of your first president and his friend your first attorney general when on two dozen occasions Congress has decided to keep it?”
   “Monckton,” he said, “why is it that every time I argue with you I lose?” And he changed the subject.
I have spoken to many leading Americans about this shoddy affair. Almost without exception, they share the view of my friend the Republican lawyer: The Constitution has had its day; it is merely a faded, irrelevant, historical parchment; nothing to see here – move along, move along into the gloomy twilight of your nationhood.
   To all my Republican friends I say this. You will come to regret, and regret bitterly, the day you stood down when you should have stood up and stood to. You should have upheld the Constitution. You betrayed it. Not only you but your nation will pay dearly for your treason by inaction.
   The world will miss the U.S. Constitution. You have let the torch in the hand of Liberty flicker and die. Why?

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Obama WH controlling topics for local press avails

By: Howard Portnoy

Why is he controlling questions asked by the media?
   Which is sort of what the administration is offering to local media. Keith Koffler at White House Dossier writes:
In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of ‘sequestration’ if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.
   Question about how he plans in his second term to create jobs were off-limits. Reducing the deficit, the GOP’s charges that he is looting Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and much else that matters was also verboten.
   Worse still, at least for the White House, was that the reporters from local venues who got to ask questions made no bones about the fact that the interviews were scripted. “The president invited me to talk about sequestration,” NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience, Koffler notes, adding, “In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at,” asking, ” “What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?”
   For the man who claimed his would be the “most open and transparent administration in history,” Obama seems to be working overtime at controlling the dialog. The question that should be on every voter’s mind is what is hiding, but anyone who has been paying attention already knows the answer.

Obama markets birth-certificate button

by Jerome R. Corsi

'Made in the USA' campaign button, sold for $5 on
TAMPA, Fla. – Following Mitt Romney’s quip last week that no one has asked to see his birth certificate, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has decided to double down on the birth certificate controversy and cash in, marketing a campaign button sure to help give the controversy new life.
   The 2012 Obama presidential campaign is now selling a button for $5 showing a smiling Barack Obama above the slogan “Made in the USA” and a picture of his birth certificate.
As WND reported, Romney’s quip about the birth certificate issue Friday while campaigning in his birth-state, Michigan, drew an immediate sharp attack from the Obama campaign.
Romney told an enthusiastic crowd in Commerce, Mich., “I love being home, in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born.”
   Noting the local hospitals where he and his wife were born, Romney remarked: “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate; they know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”
In response, the Obama campaign shot back just a couple of hours later with a post on the president’s Facebook page saying Romney had “directly enlisted himself in the birther movement.”
   A message sent from Obama’s personal Twitter account called it a “new low for Romney.”
The campaign now has struck a lighter tone, with the “Made in the USA” button on sale at the website with the following message:
   “There’s really no way to make the conspiracy about President Obama’s birth certificate completely go away, so we might as well laugh at it – and make sure as many people as possible are in on the joke. Get your Obama birth certificate Made in the USA button today.”
Shortly after the Obama campaign button was introduced, a “Made in Africa” satirical lookalike appeared.

Gov. McDonnell: Obama, Democrats focusing on abortion to distract from ‘failed’ record

By Matthew Boyle

TAMPA, Fla. — Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell told The Daily Caller he thinks President Barack Obama‘s re-election campaign is trying to use things like the recent national focus on abortion issues to distract from his “failed” record as president.

   “If you’ve got a horrible record on jobs and the economy and on debt and deficit, and you have no energy plan, then of course, you’re going to change the subject,” McDonnell said in a phone interview. “That’s why you see so much attention from the Obama campaign on Romney’s tax returns, on Bain Capital, on social issues. It’s a very small-ball campaign — a campaign of division and fear — very different than the hope and change that you saw four years ago, which was uplifting and positive.”
   “It’s because, if the election gets to be solely about jobs and the economy, debt, deficit and energy, Obama loses big because he has not produced on those policies,” he continued. “He’s failed and everybody knows it. He’s trying to make it about personality and small-ball issues.”
   Social issues — especially abortion — have peaked as an issue in the national political discourse in the last week after Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin, the state’s GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, used the phrase “legitimate rape” when arguing against abortion on local television.
   The Obama campaign sent out a fundraising appeal from Democratic strategist Donna Brazile Monday seeking to tie Akin to Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
   McDonnell said this election isn’t about those social issues — it’s really about the economy — even though Democrats, he said, will use that type of thing to distract voters.
   “The top line issue is which candidate has got the best ideas to get the greatest country on earth out of debt and back to work,” McDonnell said. “That’s what this campaign is all about. And, it’s the vision and plans of Mitt Romney versus the record of Barack Obama.”
   “No matter how you slice the cake or how you wordsmith it on the left, when you look at 42 months in a row with over 8 percent unemployment rate, 23 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, and you look at a $16 trillion debt — the highest in American history — and that this president has added $5 trillion to — that is just an indefensible record,” the Virginia governor charged. “The president has tried his policies, and they haven’t worked. It’s time for a change, and Mitt Romney is that change.”
   McDonnell, the chairman of the national Republican Governors Association, also told TheDC he thinks GOP governors’ nationwide will play a “huge” role in the upcoming election.
   “That’s going to be part of my speech [at the Republican National Convention] tomorrow night,” he said. “That is, Republican governors are doing something different than Democratic governors. We’re getting results on debt, on jobs, on energy — and doing much better than Democratic governors. So, if you like what we’re doing now, then you’ll really like what Mitt Romney will do in the White House. He’s a former governor, he’s all about balancing budgets without raising taxes and creating jobs. He’s done it in the public and private sector. And, he’s not going to make excuses and blame other people. Governors can’t do that. The buck stops at your desk. That’s why he’ll be a much more effective leader than President Obama.”

Read more:

Actress hopes hurricane kills ‘every pro-life’ SOB; Cher hopes Akin gets raped.

By Ben Johnson

   August 27, 2012 ( - In the aftermath of the Family Research Council shooting, prominent voices on the Left have not tapped down their violent rhetoric against their opponents. Two Baby Boomer celebrities have taken to Twitter to hope pro-life, pro-family individuals and U.S. Congressman Todd Akin suffer a drowning or a same-sex rape, respectively.
Ellen Barkin, 58, played the temptress in 1989's
Ellen Barkin, 58, played the temptress in 1989's "Sea of Love."

   On Sunday, Ellen Barkin expressed her hope that Tropical Storm Isaac would smash up the Republican National Convention in Tampa and drown all its delegates.
   She retweeted the message of one of her followers that read: “C’mon #Isaac! Wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-woman, xenophobic, gay-bashing, racist SOB right into the ocean! #RNC ” Barkin did not express any disagreement in her retweet.
   The storm is expected to grow into a Category 1 hurricane before slamming into the Gulf Coast on Wednesday, the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
   After a number of followers asked if it wasn’t extreme to wish death upon one’s political opponents, Barkin instead blamed the website Twitchy, which is owned by Michelle Malkin, for reporting the tweet. However, as Twitchy pointed out in response, it hadn’t yet reported the event.
   Strong language on abortion – that of Senate candidate Todd Akin – also inspired Sixties warbler and mother of transgender “son” Chaz Bono Cher to call for the congressman to be raped by an AIDS victim. Cher tweeted that it would be an act of “kama” - presumably karma - if Missouri Congressman would “get raped by man with HIV/AIDS. Nothing will happen, right? Body shuts down as defense mechanism.”
Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
   The opening of the Republican convention has been postponed until Tuesday because of Isaac. Today’s theme, “We Can Do Better,” and keynote speakers such as Sen. Rand Paul and former Democratic Congressman Arthur Davis, will be plugged into an abbreviated, three-day convention.
Barkin, who describes herself as a “Bronx girl” on her Twitter page, has posted a number of vitriolic tweets in the past.
   Despite the coverage tweets such as this week’s have earned her, social media outreach may not be her prowess. After the controversy, someone alerted her to an internet hoax on “FB.”
   The 58-year-old Barkin, who began her acting career with an uncredited role in Cheech and Chong’s 1978 movie Up in Smoke, replied by asking, “What is FB?”

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Fmr. NAACP Chief C.L. Bryant Blasts Obama At Conservative Conference

Fmr. NAACP Chief C.L. Bryant Blasts Obama At Conservative Conference

"[With] one voice tonight so many of you from all over this world have come here to the land of the free and the home of the brave and we want to let you know that we have always defended people who embraced liberty all over this world,” he proclaimed. “And these patriots will not stand down in the face of their enemies!" C.L. Bryant said at the conservative FreePAC convention last night.
"There are those among us who would enslave us. The reach and the scope of big government is the new plantation and if we are not careful we will fall under the spell of government handouts. That is why we will send this message tonight from Dallas, Texas, that we're going to sweep clean the White House," Bryant said.
Mr. Bryant is the former president of the NAACP's Garland, Texas Chapter. In March, faced off with CNN's Roland Martin over what he complained was the left's exploitation of the Trayvon Martin case.

Peter Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture (real cannons)FREEDOM over OPPRESSION 2012

Congressmen to Obama: See you in court...

   In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Thomas Jefferson.

In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty”
“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organize with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.”
Dozens of members of Congress have signed up to back a challenge to Obamacare’s mandate that employers provide contraceptive services – including abortifacients – to employees under their health care programs.
That requirement has been imposed even on employers whose religious faith forbids their participation in the deaths of unborn infants.Obama-Care in is direct oppositiob to the religious clause of the First Amendment and must be upheld.

   A number of lawsuits have been filed over the issue, one federal judge already has halted enforcement against a Denver company, and the government voluntarily has waived enforcement for now in a case brought on behalf of a Michigan company.
Now the American Center for Law and Justice is representing 79 members of Congress with amicus briefs filed in 12 separate lawsuits brought by more than 40 Catholic organizations suing over the requirement.
   The plaintiffs in the cases include the Archdiocese of New York, Notre Dame, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago and others.
   According to lawyers handling the friend-of-the-court briefs, the cases challenge the Obama administration’s demand that employers cover sterilization, prescription contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and related patient education and counseling services in their health insurance plans.
   Edward White, senior counsel for activist legal team, said, “It is essential to defeat the HHS mandate. The mandate devastates the religious freedom of all employers seeking to comply with their religious beliefs.”
   He continued, “This is not just an issue negatively impacting Catholics. This is an issue negatively impacting employers of all faiths.”
In the briefs submitted in the cases backing the Catholic organizations, the ACLJ opposes the federal government’s motions to dismiss the 12 lawsuits. The briefs were submitted with requests that the courts accept them for filing.
Joining the ACLJ in the filings were:
  • Jeff Landry, La.
  • Robert Aderholt, Ala.
  • Todd Akin, Mo.
  • Mark Amodei, Nev.
  • Michele Bachmann, Minn.
  • Spencer Bachus, Ala.
  • Lou Barletta, Pa.
  • Roscoe Bartlett, Md.
  • Dan Benishek, Mich.
  • Gus Bilirakis, Fla.
  • Diane Black, Tenn.
  • Marsha Blackburn, Tenn.
  • Charles Boustany, La.
  • Kevin Brady, Texas
  • Paul Broun, Ga.
  • Dan Burton, Ind.
  • Francisco “Quico” Canseco, Texas
  • Bill Cassidy, La.
  • Steve Chabot, Ohio
  • Michael Conaway, Texas
  • Chip Cravaack, Minn.
  • Jeff Duncan, S.C.
  • Renee Ellmers, N.C.
  • Stephen Fincher, Tenn.
  • John Fleming, La.
  • Bill Flores, Texas
  • J. Randy Forbes, Va.
  • Jeff Fortenberry, Neb.
  • Virginia Foxx, N.C.
  • Bob Goodlatte, Va.
  • Gregg Harper, Miss.
  • Andy Harris, Md.
  • Vicky Hartzler, Mo.
  • Wally Herger, Calif.
  • Tim Huelskamp, Kan.
  • Bill Huizenga, Mich.
  • Bill Johnson, Ohio
  • Walter Jones, N.C.
  • Jim Jordan, Ohio
  • Mike Kelly, Pa.
  • Steve King, Iowa
  • John Kline, Minn.
  • Raul Labrador, Idaho
  • Doug Lamborn, Colo.
  • James Lankford, Okla.
  • Bob Latta, Ohio
  • Dan Lipinski, Ill.
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mo.
  • Dan Lungren, Calif.
  • Don Manzullo, Ill.
  • Jeff Miller, Fla.
  • Mick Mulvaney, S.C.
  • Tim Murphy, Pa.
  • Randy Neugebauer, Texas
  • Alan Nunnelee, Miss.
  • Pete Olson, Texas
  • Steven Palazzo, Miss.
  • Ron Paul, Texas
  • Steve Pearce, N.M.
  • Joe Pitts, Pa.
  • Ted Poe, Texas
  • Mike Pompei, Kan.
  • Ben Quayle, Ariz.
  • Reid Ribble, Wis.
  • Phil Roe, Tenn.
  • Todd Rokita, Ind.
  • Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.
  • Dennis Ross, Fla.
  • Steve Scalise, La.
  • Bobby Schilling, Ill.
  • Jean Schmidt, Ohio
  • David Schweikert, Ariz.
  • Adrian Smith, Neb.
  • Chris Smith, N.J.
  • Lamar Smith, Texas
  • Glenn Thompson, Pa.
  • Tim Walberg, Mich.
  • Lynn Westmoreland, Ga.
  • and Joe Wilson, S.C.
   The briefs explain the mandate runs counter to America’s long and proud tradition of accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of all its citizens. The briefs contend that the mandate imposes an unconstitutional burden on individuals and organizations, who firmly oppose having to subsidize, provide, and/or facilitate activities and services that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
   Just hours earlier, it was announced that Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed another federal lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of two evangelical Christian colleges: Grace College and Seminary in Indiana and Biola University in California.
   It was the latest to challenge the administration’s mandate that faith-based employers provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.
   “Christian colleges should remain free to operate according to their deeply held beliefs. Punishing religious people and organizations for freely exercising their faith is an assault on our most fundamental American freedoms,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “This mandate leaves religious employers with no real choice: you must either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be taxed for your faith. Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this – and worse – to everyone.”
   “The Obama administration’s mandate forces us to act against our own doctrinal statement, which upholds the sanctity of human life,” said Biola University President Barry H. Corey. “It unjustly intrudes on our religious liberty as protected under the U.S.    Constitution and makes a mockery of our attempts to live our lives according to our faith convictions, time-honored and long protected.”
   ADF attorneys previously filed three other lawsuits against the mandate: one on behalf of Geneva College and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company in Pennsylvania, one on behalf of Louisiana College in Louisiana, and one on behalf of Hercules Industries in Colorado, in which a federal judge issued an order preventing the mandate from being enforced against the family-run business. The lawsuits represent a large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the mandate.
Also this week, the the American Center for Law and Justice filed a request for an injunction halting application of the mandate against a Missouri company.
   The brief argues that the government already has determined that the mandate is a “burden” on religious rights.
“In a press release issued on Jan. 20, 2012, announcing the finalization of the mandate and the temporary safe harbor period for nonprofit entities that object to contraceptive services, defendant [Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius opined that the temporary reprieve ‘strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventative services.’
   “Subsequently, in a press release issued on July 31, 2012, Sebelius stated that ‘the Obama administration will continue to work with all employers to give them the flexibility and resources they need to implement the health care law in a way that protects women’s health while making common-sense accommodations for values like religious liberty.’”
   The legal brief, filed in U.S. District court for the Eastern District of Missouri, continued. “The defendants cannot make a straight-faced argument in this litigation that the mandate does not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religious beliefs. Indeed, the defendants have postponed for a year the application of regulations that purportedly advance a compelling governmental interest solely because of the burden the defendants themselves recognize that these regulation impose on the exercise of religion.
“Clearly, nothing but a burden of a ‘substantial’ nature could justify such a postponement,” the brief said.
   The injunction request was filed on behalf of Frank R. O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings LLC, a company based in St. Louis. O’Brien is chairman of the company that explores, mines and processes raw materials, exporting to 40 nations.
The Michigan case is being pursued by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Weingartz Supply Co. and Legatus, the nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business leaders.
   In the most recent filing there, attorneys for Weingartz said the Obama administration either doesn’t care about or doesn’t like Catholics so much it is forcing them to choose between their beliefs or the federal law,.
   “The defendants offer numerous secular and even religious exemptions to the HHS mandate, but fail to offer the same respect to the Catholic beliefs of the plaintiffs – showing that defendants either care so little about those professing Catholic beliefs that they will not be bothered to address their concerns or showing that defendants are patently discriminating against and disrespecting those holding Catholic beliefs,” said the brief filed this week in support of a preliminary injunction that would protect the plaintiffs while the case moves through the courts,” the filing said.
   There, the government has waived application of the requirement because of the court case.
And leaders of of a multitude of religious-advocacy groups are warning of the Obamacare contraception mandate consequences for business owners of faith:
  • Larry Cirignano, president of Faithful Catholic Citizens: “Give up your religion or go bankrupt. This is not a mandate; it is an ultimatum. Buy insurance and kill babies or go bankrupt fighting us. Not all of us can afford lawyers to fight this ‘mandate.’”
  • Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate: “Aug. 1 will be remembered as the day our most cherished liberty was thrown in a government dumpster and hauled away. A day when family owned small businesses were forced to abandon their religious beliefs to provide products and services for free. And if they don’t, they will be taxed and fined at a time when job creators are struggling with enough costs and bureaucratic red-tape at every level of government just to stay in business. While the courts have provided a reprieve for one family business in Colorado, the government will never be able to repair the broken conscience of thousands of others until this mandate is removed.”
  • Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica: “August 1st is a day that will live in infamy for the First Amendment and the fundamental freedoms and rights we as a people have enjoyed since the founding of our nation. The HHS mandate imposed on the American people is the beginning of the end of freedom as America has known it and loved it. August 1st marks the day when many family owned and operated businesses lose their rights to exercise their faith in their daily lives. The government has told them – either comply with this mandate in violation of your faith and do what we tell you, or you will pay crippling faith fines to the federal government. With the stroke of a pen, the Obama administration has shredded the First Amendment and the Constitution right before our eyes.”
  • Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute: “The Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty is taking root … Failure to comply with the mandate will result in penalties that could cost business millions of dollars. The administration clearly did not reach a much-vaunted ‘accommodation’ with business owners who strongly oppose the mandate and believe it is a clear violation of their constitutional protection of religious liberty. The HHS mandate forces business owners to choose between following their religious beliefs or obedience to the federal government. The Obama administration clearly believes the government is supreme and that individuals and businesses must bow to its dictates or suffer severe consequences. We know that Obamacare is wrong for America. The HHS anti-conscience mandate is clear evidence of why the law violates the most fundamental principles upon which our country is founded.”
  • Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith & Freedom Coalition: “Confidence in the system and hope for religious liberty was mildly restored when a federal district judge issued a temporary injunction blocking Barack Obama’s health-care mandate from compelling a business to provide insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs. This is certainly a victory, but the fact that it only applies to one company means the federal government is still going to force millions of Americans to choose between having health insurance or their conscience and faith. With an administration intent on suppressing religious liberty, we can expect a historic turnout of voters of faith show up in November.”
  • Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America: “The only solution that has been provided to the majority of Americans is to stand up and fight for their religious rights by refusing to comply or battling in court. … We must remember the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.’ To force religious groups to deny their deeply held convictions is not called balance; it is called tyranny.”
  • Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity: “Today as a result of this initial implementation of the HHS mandate, the relationship between the separation of church and state is critically changed. Americans can no longer follow their consciences or religious dictates on issues as critical as abortion-inducing drugs. Organizations such as Wheaton College, or businesses such as Weingartz Supply of Ann Arbor, Mich.,will be forced to violate their consciences. On this sad day Americans have no ‘choice’ in this matter.”
  • David Stevens, MD and CEO of the Christian Medical Association: “What will stop this administration, with its radical pro-abortion agenda, from further undermining conscience rights and pursuing policies that effectively force out of medicine physicians with life-honoring convictions? Who will keep government panels from effectively denying physicians and patients choice about what are the most effective and appropriate medicines, surgeries and treatments? We call on Congress to turn back this law’s assault on our freedoms and restore American values and constitutional principles in health care.”
  • Paul E. Rondeau, executive director of American Life League: “History tragically teaches us that if our government can abolish one constitutional right, then all constitutional rights are put in jeopardy. This path sets a dangerous and foolish precedent that First Amendments rights such as freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press and the rights to assemble and petition the government may be just as easily curtailed in the future. We call on all citizens to tell their elected representatives that this erosion of rights must not stand.”
  • Kristin Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America: “Today marks the beginning of the end of religious and conscience rights in America. As an employer, I am forced to make a false choice between providing a vital service to my employees and violating my conscience and values. The abortion-pill mandate is an egregious attack upon my rights, as well as the rights of all people of values and faith in America.