Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Indiana’

California Lady Moves to Red State, Suddenly Sends Unexpected Message to Lib Friends Back Home


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/calif-lady-moves-to-red-state/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Flyover country. Bible belt. Middle America. Coastal elites in liberal cities have all sorts of terms for “red states,” but they all seem to convey one message: Conservative areas of the country are somehow backward and should be avoided. 

That’s the impression one California writer had about America’s heartland. Leah Singer never imagined that she would end up in Trump Country… but when she moved to Indiana not long ago, her entire perception changed.

In an editorial piece published last weekend in the Indianapolis Star, the author sent a clear message to liberal friends back in California and throughout the country: You might be wrong about “red states.”

“I used to say I’d never move to a red state. And then I did. And it’s changed my life for the better,” Singer admitted.

As a “California girl,” the writer explained that the left-leaning west coast sees itself as a bastion of “diversity,” but Singer hinted that it was less of a paradise for anybody who didn’t parrot the liberal talking points.

“I was raised in California, where we like to believe diversity is applauded and opportunities abound,” she explained. “In many ways, California’s blue state bubble can be a very safe place to live if you subscribe to the popular liberal politics.”

Advertisement – story continues below

In other words, it was diverse only if you thought and talked the same as everyone else, which kind of defeats the point. Regardless, Singer was a bit apprehensive about starting her new life in a conservative region.

“Over and over, I was questioned about why I would ever leave the Golden State for a ‘flyover’ red state. This phrase alone troubled me, and the implied perception that one flies over the Midwest just to get to their East or West coast home,” she stated.

Like sheltered people naively asking about a faraway land they’ve only vaguely heard about, the writer’s west coast friends had a lot of curiosity about how things were in America’s heartland.

“As I settled into life in the Midwest, I heard the same assumptive questions: ‘Did everyone you know vote for Donald Trump?’ ‘Are there African-American, Jewish, Asian, LGBTQ people in Indiana?’ ‘Do people make fun of you for listening to National Public Radio?‘” Singer recalled.

The coastal transplant quickly realized that her past impressions of conservative America were nowhere near the reality.

“As I got to know my new Midwest home, I realize how living in a bubble and subscribing to the Middle America stereotypes is truly damaging to this country,” she explained.

“Never does one ask how the Indiana public schools provide many opportunities that have been cut from California’s public schools because of one budget crisis after another, Singer continued.

Never does one ask about the low cost of living that is allowing us to pay off the mountain of debt we accrued in California. And never does one ask about my fellow community members, who are running successful businesses, enriching the city’s arts and making a difference for the local environment.”

She noticed something that “enlightened” coastal liberals often ignore: Places such as California may not be as truly diverse as they pretend to be.

“Southern California is diverse racially and religiously; it really is not with respect to class or working poor,” the writer revealed.

“This is especially the case in San Diego County, where it’s becoming more difficult for middle-class families to own a home or afford rent, with 41% of homeowners and 57% of renters spending 30% or more of income on housing, all while incomes stay stagnant, according to the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.”

In simple terms, many places in liberal enclaves have become so expensive to live that economic diversity is a thing of the past. It’s a bit like pretending that a gated community where everyone is a doctor or lawyer and drives a BMW is “diverse” — different racial boxes may be checked but it’s all a bit boring.

In the end, Singer’s positive experience with the midwest helped her realize that many coastal elites purposely bury their heads in the sand when it comes to real diversity within the United States.

“(H)ow many of these people travel within their own country to get to know the ‘other?’ Why travel the globe, but not make an effort to get to know your Midwest neighbor?” the author asked.

“Living in Indiana, I now have an understanding of America that I did not before. I wish more people living outside the middle took the time to get to know the others living a few states away. I did, and I am a better person because of it,” she concluded.

She may not completely realize it, but Singer has stumbled upon an important fact. Liberal obsession with diversity often shuns true multiculturalism — a variety of opinions, thoughts and political stances — and instead focuses on the “feel good” categorization of irrelevant traits like skin color.

In many of the most important ways, conservative areas of the country are advancing while liberal neighborhoods face major problems.

Thankfully, people like Singer are having their eyes opened once they actually escape their bubble… and they’re realizing what conservatives have known for decades: Small town America might be on to something after all.

Can We Get the Councilman’s Handcuffs Removed So We Can Swear Him in, Please?


waving flagby | 8:06 am, January 25th, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.mediaite.com/online/can-we-get-the-councilmans-handcuffs-removed-so-we-can-swear-him-in-please

<!–

–>

Screen Shot 2016-01-25 at 7.58.50 AM

[image via Lake County Sheriff’s Department] [h/t Chicago Tribune]

In the state of Indiana, it’s hard to imagine that city officials have ever had to do what they did on Friday: actually swear in an elected City Councilman while he sat behind bars on murder and drug charges.

That’s the exact situation unfolding with Democrat Robert Battle, who won his reelection campaign in November, despite having just been arrested on charges from the federal government. He was sworn in from behind bars at Porter County Jail.

In September, Battle was arrested on a charge of marijuana possession after law enforcement stopped him for speeding in a construction zone and found 40 grams of pot in his vehicle.

A month later, Battle was charged in the shooting death of Reimundo Camarillo Jr. on October 12, 2015. The Lake County Sheriff John Buncich called for Battle to resign, telling the press, “The right thing to do at this time would be to resign, step aside so the East Chicago Indiana citizens in the third district can be represented properly.”

“It’s wrong for the taxpayers, wrong for our party… I can’t remember a situation like this,” Sheriff Buncich continued.

However, Battle did not remove himself from office, and still by law will continue to earn his $42,365 salary until he either resigns or admit his guilt. As of now, Councilman Battle has maintained his innocence. According to the Chicago Tribune, his trial is scheduled for August.Picture3

Correction: in an earlier version of the story, we incorrectly identified that Councilman Battle was from Chicago rather than Indiana. We have corrected the details in the version above.

J.D. Durkin is the Senior Editor of Mediaite. You can follow him on Twitter @MediaiteJD.

definetly Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

This State Just Passed A LAW That Will REALLY Keep Illegal Aliens Out (The LEFT Hates This)


 

waving flagReported by Written by Wes Walker on January 11, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/01/this-state-just-passed-a-law-that-will-really-keep-illegal-aliens-out-the-left-hates-this

illegalalienvoters-300x300

Immigration, like many other issues is a complex problem (we are told). The solutions must be similarly complex, we are told by the same people. Or is there an easier way? Well, it looks like Indiana might have found one, and honestly, it’s one that the feds (of either party) should have figured out a long time ago.

Really? Yes. Especially considering the Executive Order last September encouraging greater reliance on behavioural science to coerce — sorry, “serve” — the doe-eyed American public by having said public adopt such behaviours as government officials have decreed are in their best interests.

Seeing the government’s love for the behavioural sciences, some effort might have gone into seeing whether they had anything to offer in solving this immigration issue.

You know, maybe look at what drives large groups of people to hop a fence (or, perhaps the empty space where legislation said a fence should have been), and come to America. Why is it only the Southern border that crowds keep crossing? Why to America from Mexico, and not to Central America? Such questions lead to insights and answers. So they are not asked.

Motivation matters in determining behaviour. If you work with behavioural consultants (as I have) you know this. In working for decades with adults with challenging behaviour, I’m quite familiar with the methods politicians are attempting to co-opt for pure political advantage.

Aside from the Machiavellian, Alinsky-ist, intentions, good ideas can be borrowed from these programs. Understanding the connection between behaviour and motivation, for example. (Which incidentally is why unpopular programs [*cough* Obamacare *cough*] rely so heavily on rewards and punishments to force general compliance.)

That cause/effect connection seems to have been grasped and applied by Indiana, as evidenced by their new Bill. Just to help you explain this connection to your pro-statist friends or family, I’ll show you a non-political application. 

When I lived in Florida for 3 years, I quickly learned about ants. They have the ability to shape human behaviour. Maybe this isn’t an issue in newer buildings, or high-rises, but where we were, ants had no trouble finding their way inside.

That half- open box of cereal in your cupboard that was ‘no big deal’ up North? You can’t do that in Florida. They find it, call their buddies, and swarm it. It wouldn’t matter even if you hopelessly smashed that line of ants all day long, you will never, ever, diminish their numbers.

So does this mean everybody in Florida is plagued by ants? Nope. I quickly learned to seal food tightly. I stopped doing battle with the ants. They lost interest, and went looking for more reliable food sources. I leveraged their nature, rather than fighting it. I made what attracted them (food) inaccessible, and they sought it elsewhere.

“What does that have to do with immigration, you racist!” Calm down, this isn’t racial, it’s behavioural. In big, bold letters, what did we learn from the story?  Behaviour that is rewarded is magnified, behaviour that is unrewarded is diminished.

Now let’s look at Indiana. Their new bill is aimed at employers. If an employer is found to have knowingly hired an illegal alien (already an illegal act) it will, on the third offence, be subject to having their business licence stripped.

It’s brilliant, and simple. It doesn’t deport anybody. It doesn’t target the illegal immigrants. It focuses on the workplace. Suddenly the employers face the real risk. You can’t dismiss the threat of fines as a business expense. The stakes just got higher. If the business loses a licence, the owner could lose his livelihood, and any money invested in the business. Is it still worth the risk of hiring a non-qualified applicant? In many cases, no.

With fewer people hiring non-qualified applicants, will they stick around, or will they look for more lucrative options? Will they seek sanctuary cities, perhaps, or a State known for ignoring immigration laws?

Who knows? They might even go home, or (gasp!) apply to enter the legal way. Which they should have done in the first place.

Illegal Immigration Giant In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

In Wake of Paris Terrorist Attacks, Here’s a Map of the States Shutting Their Doors to Syrian Refugees


waving flagReported by Kelsey Harkness / / November 16, 2015

On Monday and into Tuesday, more than two dozen governors moved to block Syrian refugees from entering their states. (Photo: Kelsey Lucas/Visualsey)

In the aftermath of Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris, governors across the United States are attempting to shut their doors on Syrian refugees looking to find a safe haven in the country. As of Monday evening, more than two dozen governors announced opposition to policies that would permit Syrian refugees to enter their states amid concerns they could have ties to terrorists.

Thus far, states whose governors oppose more Syrian refugees include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, GeorgiaIdahoIllinoisIndiana, IowaKansas, Louisiana, MaineMassachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, NebraskaNew HampshireNew Jersey, New MexicoNorth Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, TennesseeTexas, and Wisconsin.

Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin, who will take office Dec. 8, also said he opposes resettlement efforts.

The movement, which was overwhelmingly spearheaded by Republican governors, came after French prosecutors discovered a Syrian passport on one of the suspected Islamic State suicide bombers in Paris. That finding raised concerns that terrorists are embedding with refugees to enter Europe and other nations.Do you want

The series of attacks in Paris on Friday night left more than 130 dead and hundreds others injured. French President François Hollande called the attacks an “act of war” and launched airstrikes against ISIS.

President Barack Obama sharply pushed back against the growing number of states attempting to undermine his policies surrounding Syrian refugees, saying Monday at a press conference in Antalya, Turkey, that it would be “shameful” and “not American” to close America’s doors on Syrian refugees.

“When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” he said. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”DELUSIONAL

In September, Obama vowed to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States next year.

As of Nov. 3, there were more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency.

Those issuing executive orders to block refugees pushed back on the president’s narrative while announcing their decision.

“Michigan is a welcoming state, and we are proud of our rich history of immigration,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents.”

In a letter addressed to the president, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.”Islam is NOT

While their responses send a clear message to the president, John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said the practical implications blocking refugees are limited.

“Governors can certainly order state agencies to stop doing anything to assist federal authorities with their resettlement efforts, but they cannot stop federal authorities from continuing those efforts, nor can they stop immigrants who are lawfully admitted to this country from moving to and settling in those states,” Malcolm said. “They can, however, ask state law enforcement authorities to keep an eye on the refugees who settle in their states, so long as those authorities do so within the bounds of the Constitution.”

“It’s abhorrent for the federal government not to consult with and consider the interests of the states,” added Jim Carafano, a foreign policy expert at The Heritage Foundation. “Particularly the views of governors, as it impacts the welfare and public safety of their citizens.”America Never Forget

Florida Gov. Rick Scott addressed those concerns in a letter sent to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. In that letter, dated Nov. 16, Scott wrote:

[I]t is our understanding that the state does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida even without state support. Therefore, we are asking the United States Congress to take immediate and aggressive action to prevent President Obama and his administration from using any federal tax dollars to fund the relocation of up to 425 Syrian refugees (the total possible number of refugees pending for state relocation support at this time) to Florida, or anywhere in the United States, without an extensive evaluation of the risk these individuals may post to our national security.AMEN

muslim-obamaIn response, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation on Monday afternoon that would suspend issuance of visas to refugees from countries with a high risk of terrorism until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security meets certain standards. Those standards include fingerprinting and screening all refugees, implement a tracking system “to catch attempted overstays,” and enhancing security measures that are already in place.

“The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks,” Paul said in a press release.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, also called to suspend the refugee program.

“The Syrian refugee program should be suspended until the American people are satisfied that they know exactly who the president is admitting into the country via this program,” Burr said. “There is simply too much at stake, and the security of the American people should be our top priority.”

This article and its accompanying map has been updated to reflect the growing number of governors who do not wish to permit Syrian refugees into their state. of domenstic terrorist

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into ‘Catering’ a Gay Wedding


waving flagPosted by Travis Weber / / October 16, 2015

Much of the media today roundly disparage any business-person who even voices his or her religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. This is the consistent narrative by which many presumptuously judge small business owners’ (often wedding vendors) motives in affirming their religious convictions as animating their business lives. Critics reject out of hand their claims that they are simply living out their faith with love and can’t be a part of a wedding ceremony that violates their consciences.Big Gay Hate Machine

When the owners of Memories Pizza—a small-town pizzeria in Indiana—were posed a hypothetical question about whether they would cater a gay wedding last year, the “intolerance” of their simple response that they would not resulted in a threat to burn down their shop. They did not answer threats with threats, but continued to calmly explain that they would happily serve gay customers; they just didn’t want to be a part of the wedding. Of course, none of this mattered to those not interested in seeking the facts.

want_rel_liberty_rIt now appears that a man ordered two pizzas from Memories Pizza, without stating his reasons (as is quite normal when ordering pizza), and brought them back to serve at his same-sex wedding. He recorded the event on video and claimed that Memories “catered” his gay wedding—without knowing it.

While the charade itself is sort of childish, it does hold several lessons for us. Let us first consider that, in response to the video, Memories owner Kevin O’Connor has…

Threatened to burn something down? Nope.

Called someone a bigot? Nope.

He’s actually not really too interested in the actions of his customer after selling him the pizza.

So what’s the point?

It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships. Its owners did not CP 01deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.

Those truly seeking to understand the conflicts in the “wedding vendor cases” should study what happened here, for they will see that no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years. They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them.

What else can we learn?

Leftist Giant called TyrannyIt’s important to note that Kevin O’Connor did not respond in an apoplectic manner with claims of “my conscience was violated here!” Conscience is violated not merely by the occurrence of events; there must be knowledge of what one is getting oneself into or being forced to participate in. It must be emphasized that the wedding vendors around the country who are asserting their religious freedom are doing so because they are knowingly being forced to participate in an act that violates their conscience, not because a customer disagrees with them on matters of sexuality.

Even then, Kevin would have had no problem serving the customer the pizzas even if he knew who he was. “We weren’t catering to their wedding,” Kevin said. “They were picking [pizzas] up.” Kevin has no problem with serving a person in his shop, whether or not that person identifies as gay.

For those who truly care to understand what the wedding vendors are seeking in these cases, there is an important lesson here. Kevin O’Connor’s indifference in this matter can be contrasted with his kind but firm refusal to participate in a same-sex wedding when asked earlier this year.

He is not asking to “turn away” people. He is only asking that he not be forced to violate his conscience by knowingly participating in a wedding ceremony that runs counter to his religious beliefs. Memories Pizza’s unproblematic “catering” of the same-sex wedding in this case shows as much. Those who sincerely care to understand more about such religious freedom claims can learn from Kevin’s actions, which are an important teaching moment on the role of conscience in the “wedding vendor cases” and beyond.Picture2

The small business owners involved in these matters are not asking for a “blank check” to do whatever they want. They are advancing sincere conscience claims against being forced to knowingly use their businesses for certain ends, and they are often happy to forgo the lost income and even refer the potential customers to another business where they can find what they need.

As long as we live in a democracy, people will have differing views on moral questions. The model of tolerance displayed by Kevin O’Connor is as good as any for how we can live together with those differences.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Indiana Man Says IRS Fined Him $2,344 for Violating Obamacare’s Individual Mandate


waving flagPosted by Natalie Johnson / / October 16, 2015

Being sick of ObamaAn Indiana man’s IRS bill went viral after he posted a photograph to his Facebook page of a $2,344 fine he claimed was from the federal government for not purchasing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Benjamin Miller said his insurance skyrocketed after President Barack Obama’s health care law took effect so he decided to forgo enrollment, provoking the claimed hefty fine from the IRS for violating the law’s individual mandate.

depression-obamacareIn the Facebook post, withheld because it contains personal information, Miller said the plan for him and his family cost $398 a month prior to Obamacare’s implementation. In 2014, after the law took effect, his insurance soared to $1,400 a month.

“So I chose not to pay $1,400 a month so [I] got a nice little fine,” Miller wrote in the Facebook post. “Thanks Obama for the fine for not having insurance … Thanks for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks for making it so affordable!”Complete Message

The bill shows Miller was penalized under Obamacare’s individual mandate, now termed a “shared responsibility payment,” which requires individuals to purchase health coverage or pay a fine.bill

Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, said one of the main criticisms of the mandate since its introduction is that the fine is initially set so low that it is cheaper for people with middle or lower-middle incomes—particularly those who are young, healthy and without dependents—to pay the fine than to buy the health coverage. Last year, roughly 7.5 million Americans opted to pay the fine rather than purchase coverage under the Affordable Care Act, according to the IRS.

Obamacare SuppositoriesHaislmaier said the mandate remains “extremely unpopular” among Americans, with bipartisan opposition spanning across ideologies. “A lot of the people who are on the more conservative end of the political spectrum view this as an infringement on their personal liberty,” Haislmaier said. “Whereas people, even on the very left end of the political spectrum, have a dislike of private insurance and really resent the government forcing them to buy private coverage when they would much rather have a government, single-payer program.”

He said this opposition is likely to continue, particularly because these penalties are scheduled to increase.

Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the IRS, said he could not confirm the authenticity of Miller’s photograph.

“Federal law would prohibit any federal employee from actually speaking about that,” Mendie said.

 

 

94c7243b28ce3e3dd0bdcf1643b8f493 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Full, Unedited 8th Video Confirms Planned Parenthood Sells Fully Intact Aborted Babies


waving flagPublished by Steven Ertelt   Aug 28, 2015   |   Washington, DC

Today, the Center for Medical Progress released the full, uncut video of the conversation between undercover investigators form CMP and top officials with StemExpress, which buys aborted babies and their body parts from Planned Parenthood. The full footage is of a shorter video that summarized the meetings earlier this week.

The release of the full, unedited video also comes one day after Planned Parenthood released a new report claiming the eight videos released exposing it were “altered.” The abortion giant says the videos were manipulated and therefore not eligible for serious inquiry by Congress, which has launched two joint investigations of the abortion corporation. Still, Planned Parenthood’s own paid for experts admitted that there was no evidence of any manipulation of the audio in any of the eight shocking videos.

The full two-hour-long video appears below:

full

While the videos have focused on the Planned Parenthood abortion business, the biotech firm StemExpress, which buys and resells aborted baby body parts from the abortion giant, has filed a lawsuit seeking to block some information the Center for Medical Progress obtained in its three year undercover operation. Just a short time after a judge issued a ruling that the biotech firm StemExpress can’t block the Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos, it put together a preview of its latest installment.

StemExpress is a for-profit biotech supply company that has been partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country to purchase human fetal parts since its founding in 2010. StemExpress’ Medical Director, Dr. Ronald Berman, is an abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in California.how many body parts

PP MonsterIn the video, Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress, is shown in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. She laughs about how shippers of the aborted babies would give a warning to lab workers to expect such a baby.

“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.

“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “You know, open the box and go ‘Oh my God,’” Dyer adds.

The eighth video in the ongoing controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts shows the CEO of StemExpress, a major buyer of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, admitting the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough, and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale.

In the video, actors posing as another human biologics company meet with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer, plus Vice President of Corporate Development and Legal Affairs Kevin Cooksy, and Procurement Manager Megan Barr. StemExpress and the actors are discussing a potential partnership to supply extra fetal body parts to each other.

“So many physicians are like, ‘Oh I can totally procure tissue,’ and they can’t,” expresses Dyer, seeming to indicate that abortion doctors must do the procedure in a special way to obtain useable fetal parts. Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

“What about intact specimens?” asks one of the actors. “Oh yeah, I mean if you have intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” replies Dyer. “Case” is the clinical term for an abortion procedure. An “intact case” refers to an intact abortion with a whole fetus. “The entire case?” asks an actor. “Yeah, yeah,” says Dyer. “The procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed,” she explains past botched fetal dissections, “so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.”What did you say 05.jpg

Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.

“What would make your lab happy?” asks one of the actors. “Another 50 livers a week,” says Dyer. “We’re working with almost like triple digit number clinics,” Dyer explains, “and we still need more.” She later notes, “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.”

Dyer also agrees that payments to abortion clinics for fetal body parts should be financially beneficial to them.

“Do you feel like there are clinics out there that have been burned, that feel like they’re doing all this work for research and it hasn’t been profitable for them?” she asks. “I haven’t seen that.” StemExpress publishes a flyer for Planned Parenthood clinics that promises “Financial Profits” and “fiscal rewards” for clinics that supply aborted fetal tissue. It is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Chief Medical Officer Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.Hate Merchants

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). The Sacramento Business Journal reported in June that StemExpress has an annual revenue of $4.5 million.

David Daleiden, the head of CMP, commented on the newest video in a statement to LifeNews.

“StemExpress is the ‘weakest link’ that unravels Planned Parenthood’s baby parts chain–they readily admit the profit-motive that Planned Parenthood and their proxies have in supplying aborted baby parts,” he said. “Congress and law enforcement should immediately seize all fetal tissue files from StemExpress and all communications and contracts with Planned Parenthood. The evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of aborted baby parts is now overwhelming, and not one more dime of taxpayer money should go to their corrupt and fraudulent criminal enterprise.”

After the swarm of negative publicity surrounding Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies and their body parts, StemExpress was forced to cut ties with the abortion company.

Meanwhile, two committees in the House of Representatives have already launched investigations of Planned Parenthood. One committee is looking into whether or not the abortion business is breaking federal law by altering abortion procedures to better obtain aborted baby body parts for sale. Another committee, among other things, is investigating the Obama administration and whether there is any connection between it and the abortion giant.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all eight:

  • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
  • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
  • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
  • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
  • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
  • In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
  • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

So far, 12 states have responded to the Planned Parenthood videos and launched investigations into their abortion and organ harvesting business including South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Massachusetts, KansasMissouri, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana. The district attorney in Houston Texas is also investigating after the Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion facility was caught selling aborted babies.

Congress has expanded its investigation into the Planned Parenthood abortion business and five states have revoked taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, including Utah, Arkansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana and Iowa’s governor has ordered a review of Planned Parenthood funding.

The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.

The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.

Which kills more blacks comparison In God We Trust freedom combo 2

At least six U.S. states move to arm National Guard offices


Reporting by Kevin Murphy in Kansas City and Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles; Editing by Alan Crosby and Jonathan Oatis

“It is painful enough when we lose members of our armed forces when they are sent in harm’s way, but it is unfathomable that they should be vulnerable for attack in our own communities,” Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin said in a statement.

Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Mike Pence of Indiana issued similar orders for National Guard members after four U.S. Marines and a Navy petty officer were shot and killed on Thursday in Chattanooga, Tennessee. One site where the shootings occurred was a recruiting office in a strip mall.

All six of the governors are Republican.

In Florida, Scott ordered six storefront Florida National Guard recruiting centers to be moved to the nearest Guard armory buildings. The governor said Guard members who do not carry weapons should get them and obtain expedited concealed weapon permits, if necessary. In his executive order, Scott said bulletproof glass and better video surveillance equipment are among steps that should be considered to make recruiting offices safer.

Pence ordered the arming of military personnel at all Indiana National Guard facilities and recruiting storefronts, and Oklahoma Governor Fallin’s office said her executive order also included military recruiting offices. Military personnel in uniform would not usually have authorization to carry a personal weapon while working in recruiting offices, the Pentagon said on Friday. “It has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil,” Abbott said in a news release.you think

“Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base,” he added.

AMEN

No-weapons-590 freedom combo 2

 

Freedom of Association Is Burned at the Stake in Indiana


 

by Deroy Murdock April 1, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: Http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416257/freedom-association-burned-stake-indiana-deroy-Murdock

mob

“Are we prepared to handcuff a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club?”

The only identifiable victim of Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association clause. Like Joan of Arc, it has been burned at the stake.

In the name of nondiscrimination, Republican governor Mike Pence has surrendered to the angry mobs that erupted like the Sandinistas’ turbinas divinas. Despite RFRA’s similarity to a 22-year-old federal statute and laws in 18 other states, liberal activists and journalists have distorted Indiana’s measure into an alleged anti-gay hit list.https://embed.reembed.com/conservativebyte.com/3lsEru0Rl9hG07r2f51zfi0nhttps://t.reembed.com/3lsEru0Rl9hG07r2f51zfi0n”&gt;Homosexual Bakers refuse to bake antihomosexual cake

It never helps that laws like this one focus solely on the rights of religious people. As vital as religious liberty is, what about the rights of the 25 percent of Americans who have no faith? The safe harbors that these laws attempt to dredge should not, themselves, discriminate against nonbelievers.

The sorts of freedoms shielded by Indiana’s new law — and nearly identical pieces of legislation heralded by the ACLU, signed by President Clinton, and supported by Obama in the Illinois state senate — should be protected for all Americans, be they religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, or otherwise. Freedom of Association belongs to all Americans, via the First Amendment, not only those who happen to be religious.

What if you are an atheist who really objects to gay marriage? Must you still bake cakes for gay weddings, or will pro-shariah Muslim bakers be the only ones who can walk into court and ask to be excused from doing so?

The oft-screamed battle cries of liberals, feminists, and gay-rights activists vividly illustrate the implications of what Pence’s critics demand. If every business in Indiana must do business with everyone who walks through the door because, as Pence said today, “this law does not give anyone the right to discriminate,” then:

  • Do we still respect a woman’s right to choose not to bake a cake for a gay couple?

  • Do we respect a woman’s right to choose not to take photographs at a Christmas party at a men’s club because she is a feminist who deeply loathes all-male establishments?

  • Do we respect the rights of groups of women to choose to enjoy the sisterhood of a women’s club where they need not cope with men?

  • Do we respect the Junior League’s right to choose to remain a female-only group, as it has been since 1901, or must they now accept male members?

  • Do we respect a lesbian bar owner’s right to choose to post a No Men Allowed sign in her window because her customers want to enjoy their all-female company in peace and don’t want to associate there with a bunch of hairy dudes with Adam’s apples, brawny shoulders, testosterone in their veins, and penises in their pants?

  • Do we respect a gay merchant’s decision to tell a heterosexual couple to stop making out inside his club full of gay men who could live without such a spectacle while meeting other gay men? “Bake this!” — Can a gay baker just say no?

  • Do we respect a gay baker’s right to choose not to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with icing that reads God Hates Fags?

  • Do we respect a fundamentalist Muslim baker’s choice not to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah because she really is not crazy about the Star of David?

  • Do we respect a black jazz band’s choice not to perform at a Ku Klux Klan chapter’s “Negro Minstrel Show”?

  • Do we respect a pro–gun control photographer’s right to choose not to snap pictures at a Sharpshooter of the Year banquet organized by the local chapter of the National Rifle Association?

  • Do we respect a vegan woman’s right to choose not to bake a cake for the Indiana Pork Farmers’ Man of the Year dinner?

  • Do we respect a Jewish calligrapher’s right to choose not to produce hand-written invitations for a Hitler Day brunch organized by a local neo-Nazi group?

If these examples sound absurd, are they really that much crazier than a gay couple’s demand that an evangelical Christian baker produce their wedding cake against her will, when other bakers are eager for their business? Also, it is crucial to remember that behind each of these scenarios lies something deadly serious: a gun.

Government equals force. Its ultimate authority stems from its ability to use coercion or blunt force to deprive lawbreakers of their freedom. Why, ultimately, do people pay their taxes? Funding schools, courts, and atomic submarines has its charms. So does staying out of jail. As George Washington reportedly said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”Master

So, the real question in each of these cases is:

  • Do you support the government’s use of coercive police power — up to and including fines, arrest by armed police officers, and imprisonment — because you reject a woman’s right to choose not to bake a cake for a gay couple? •

  • Do you support the government fining, handcuffing, or incarcerating a gay baker because he refuses to bake a cake that says God Hates Fags?

  • Etc.

In the public sector, the government must administer equal justice under the law and treat all Americans equally. Thus, the anti-gay discrimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” deserved to end. Likewise, conservatives such as Ted Olson and I believe that government should not discriminate against gay couples when handing out marriage licenses. (Obviously, other conservatives disagree.)

The private sector, such as it is, is something different. Private individuals on private property should be free to associate with whom and without whom they wish. Just because someone runs a business or is part of a private group or organization does not mean that she surrenders her rights or becomes a mere appendage of government.AMEN

At least that’s what the First Amendment says — such as it is.

Freed of most restraints against government action and populated by citizens increasingly oblivious to this nation’s founding principles, America is slouching into tyranny. Little by little. Day by day. This is incredibly depressing. And to see gay people lead this charge into bondage may be the saddest sight of all.Picture3

Tyrant Obama cropped-freedom-is-not-dictator-friendly.png Imperial President Obama kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

Picture6

These 19 States Have Religious Freedom Laws Similar to Indiana’s. Here’s What That Means.


 

Posted by Kelsey Harkness / / March 31, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/31/these-19-states-have-religious-freedom-laws-similar-to-indianas-heres-what-that-means/

Gov. Mike Pence gained national attention when he signed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law last week. It caused the Twitter hashtag #BoycottIndiana to go viral and triggered Apple CEO Tim Cook to pen a Washington Post op-ed calling “pro-discrimination” laws “dangerous.” Yet, despite the uproar, Indiana isn’t alone in enacting legislation that seeks to protect the religious freedom of its citizens.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts—or what critics call “pro-discrimination” laws—have been around for over two decades.  Religious Freedom Restoration Acts first came about after the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which “narrowed protections for the free exercise of religion.” In response to the court’s ruling, Congress sought to restore religious freedom by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, popularly known as RFRA. The legislation won unanimous support in the House, passed 97-3 in the Senate, and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.

Since then, in addition to Indiana, 19 states have passed their own state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Another 11 states have RFRA-like protections provided by state court decisions.

religfreedommaps-1_v2

Under Indiana’s new law, “[T]he state cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless it is furthering a compelling government interest and acting in the least restrictive way possible.”

Critics say the legislation will enable business owners to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation—or as Hillary Clinton put it, because of “who they love.” They also argue Indiana’s religious freedom law, which goes into effect in July, is more loosely written than other RFRAs. Pence has said that he plans to “clarify” the law’s intent.

But those who support RFRAs—including The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, who researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty—argue RFRAs are not written to be “anti-gay.” Anderson says Indiana’s RFRA does not allow business owners to refuse service based on a person’s sexual orientation. He argues that the law provides those with strong religious beliefs a shield from being discriminated against for dissenting against popular opinions about marriage or other faith-based matters.

“This debate has nothing to do with refusing to serve gays simply because they’re gay, and this law wouldn’t protect that,” he told The Daily Signal.

The religious liberty concern centers on the reasonable belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The question is whether the government should discriminate against these citizens, should the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith? A Religious Freedom Restoration Act could protect these citizens. But it might not.

But Indiana is different than some other states that have RFRAs in at least one way. Unlike Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, and Rhode Island, which in addition to RFRAs, also passed some form of legislation explicitly banning the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation, Indiana doesn’t have a law on the books that specifically protects against the discrimination of gays and lesbians.

religfreedommaps-3_v2

Critics of Indiana’s new law say because there is no state law protecting gays and lesbians (only measures in certain cities throughout the state), those people may be discriminated against through the RFRA. They also fear supporters of the RFRA will use it to undermine the few local nondiscrimination laws that do exist in cities like Indianapolis.

Those in favor of RFRA laws argue nondiscrimination legislation shouldn’t matter much in the eyes of the court because there have been no cases to date where business owners refused service simply based on a person’s sexual orientation. There have been instances where business owners refused service to gay and lesbian customers—like when a 70-year-old florist from Washington would not design floral arrangements for a same-sex marriage.

Unknown

But in those situations, the business owners who denied service said they should not be forced to contribute to a religious ceremony that conflicts with their religious beliefs.AMEN

“I did serve Rob,” Barronelle Stutzman, the Washington florist, told The Daily Signal in an earlier interview. “It’s the event that I turned down, not the service for Rob or his partner.” Still, Washington state—which doesn’t have a RFRA—ruled against Stutzman, finding her in violation of the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws.

>>> Read More: State Says 70-Year-Old Flower Shop Owner Discriminated Against Gay Couple. Here’s How She Responded.

Cases such as Stutzman’s are why many religious freedom advocates argue that it’s important that states adopt RFRAs as protections. “The law doesn’t say who will win,” Anderson said. “Only that a court should review, using a well-established balancing test, and hold the government accountable to justify its action.”

Some of the attached graphics have been corrected.Picture6

Delegates begin planning for changes to U.S. Constitution


http://minutemennews.com/2014/06/delegates-begin-planning-changes-u-s-constitution/

INDIANAPOLIS | Representatives and senators from 29 states met Thursday in the Indiana Statehouse to begin planning for the first state-led revisions to the U.S. Constitution since the nation’s fundamental governing document was enacted in 1789.

The significance of the work undertaken by The Mount Vernon Assembly to prepare for a future Convention of the States was not lost on the 94 official and participating delegates, mostly Republicans, who filled the House chamber.

“Nothing like this has occurred in over two centuries, though certainly the founders of this nation assumed it would have happened long ago,” said Indiana Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, an organizer of the meeting.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress call a Convention of the States for proposing constitutional amendments if legislatures in two-thirds of the states (34 states) request one. If the convention approves an amendment, it then can be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) and added to the Constitution without additional congressional approval.

However, because an Article V convention never has been called, there are no clear procedures on how it would begin, what rules the convention would follow or whether it could be limited in scope.

The Mount Vernon Assembly, which organized last December at George Washington’s Virginia estate and is planning to change its name to the Assembly of State Legislatures, has taken it upon itself to start answering those questions to ensure a future Convention of the States gets off on the right foot.

“It has been a failure on the part of state legislatures for not stepping up for the past 200 years and saying, here’s how we’re going to do it, so that’s what we’re doing,” said state Rep. Chris Kapenga, a Wisconsin Republican.

“It’s time we accept the responsibility given us because there’s little debate in state legislatures, or in the public, that something’s not right in Washington.”

Throughout the morning, delegates discussed their organizing principles and whether they were being too deliberate in their planning.

Kapenga pushed back on the few lawmakers who wanted to jump ahead to debating amendment proposals that someday could be considered by a Convention of the States.

“This is the Constitution of the United States — we have to be very cautious and go through this process where we make sure anything that we put down is debated and discussed, and debated and discussed, and the final product is solid,” Kapenga said.

In the afternoon, delegates organized into four committees to begin tackling detailed planning questions for a Convention of the States, including how many delegates each state should have, whether states must send Congress an identical request and whether past state calls for Article V conventions, such as those submitted by Indiana in 1861 and 1979, are still valid.

State Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, was appointed co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He will help shape answers to those questions and others ahead of the assembly’s December meeting, where its proposed rules for a Convention of the States will be approved.

Ultimately, the Convention of the States, if one ever is called, must decide whether to accept the rules and procedures proposed by the Assembly of State Legislatures.

Long said regardless of that decision, the work of planning and preparing for a convention has reminded states of their rights under America’s federalist system of government and their role in the constitutional amendment process.

“States’ rights has never been, nor should it ever be, a partisan issue,” Long said. “It is instead a constitutionally based concept that has made us the great country that we are today — 50 independent states, governed separately but united together.”

Copyright 2014 nwitimes.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

<!– AP Usage Tag

–>

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: