One of my co-workers said that he voted for Barack Obama because he (the co-worker) believed that Obama would govern more centrist than what he campaigned.
"So...you're saying that you voted for the man because you believed that his campaign promises were lies?"
Within minutes of our new president taking the oath of office, the White House web page had been changed. A few of the "changes" on his agenda could directly target Christians and Christian organizations.
It could become illegal for a Christian hospital to deny abortions for any reason.
It could become illegal for a Christian adoption agency to adopt only to heterosexual married couples.
"Changes" directly contradict the Constitution's mandate of "state's rights".
FOCA would effectively make ALL abortion issues federal issues and would effectively (and purposefully) overturn laws made at a state level.
FOCA would not only take away state's rights to make laws that do not concern things in the Constitution, they also take away the citizen's rights to vote on proposals concerning abortion at the state level.
President Obama's agenda is a two-prong offensive against
state's rights
Christians following their consciences in matters of the gay agenda and the abortion agenda.
I will pray for our president's safety and health. I will pray that God guide his heart and change his attitude toward the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizens - the unborn. I will pray that God sway his mind in a way that guides his toward the Living God.
I will not support him, which includes by necessity supporting his agenda.
I will "all work together" in much the same way that liberals "worked together" with President Bush. They fought him every step of the way and were outspoken about where they disagreed.
For those who voted for Barack Obama because his expanded abortion policies would reduce abortion... (HELLO? what happens when you make a service cheaper and more available????)
It seems that the "office of the president elect" has a page where you can write questions and people can vote on them.
Justin Taylor submitted a question: "Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?"
notice: it was removed from the vote because "people think it is inappropriate".
Myself, before I asked a question, I'd consider "Joe the Plumber"
It seems that used coffee grounds are about 15% oil (a little less than the usual feedstock used for biodiesel) and that they make a very suitable material for creating usable fuel...
VERY suitable.
Consider:
- This is already a "recycled" product, so no food product would need to be diverted from feeding people, thus driving the price of the product higher for people who may already be in the midst of a cash or food crisis.
- Coffee (and coffee grounds) are high in anti-oxidants, which would delay rancification - thus making a more stable biodiesel than many other feedstocks.
- The "leftovers" - the grounds left over after the oil has been extracted - is dry and still high in nitrogen, making great compost for fertilizer (note: I feed my plants leftover coffee and the ones that get that treatment do great.)
- These leftovers can also be made into pellets for heating stoves (like the ones that use corn pellets), taking some of the heating load off of petroleum heating fuel.
In my opinion, these things should make the biodiesel industry sit up and take a look at the trash coming out of coffee shops. How much of this "stuff" is available and would it be worth it?
Just Starbucks generates about "210 million pounds of spent coffee grounds per year in the US, the researchers calculate that it could amount to 2.92 million gallons of biodiesel and 89,000 tons of fuel pellets..."
Just Starbucks! and then there's McDonald's...and all the other coffee shops and breakfast shops....
The cost per gallon is high...but so is the $8 million profit. If this venture were taken on as a low-profit venture, the cost would come down and the profit could still be quite high.
Yippee. Just as the "big three" are gasping their last breathes, our wonderful legislature is talking about raising gasoline taxes and 50% hikes in vehicle registration.
And Obama tags our faithful (Democrat) governor to be on his economic advisory team.
Okay..."Which state has the worst economy in the country?
Highest unemployment rate? check.
Highest forclosure? check."
Let's pick THAT governor...yeah...we want HER to explain to fix the economy."
Business are leaving the state? Let's raise business taxes!
11% unemployment? Let's raise gasoline taxes!
Massive looming layoffs? Let's raise vehicle registration!
It turns out that half of Obamas haul in 2008 has come in contributions of $200 dollars or less. These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors.
It turns out that half of Obamas haul in 2008 has come in contributions of $200 dollars or less. These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors.
I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?
I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:
Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999
Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."
This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.
In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.
Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:
I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.
I didn't want to. Ideally, I could have contributed $0.01 and cost them money. But it was the only way to confirm the root cause of the fraudulent micro-donations to the Obama campaign ("Doodad Pro" for $17,300 and "Good Will" for $11,000).
The Obama campaign has turned its security settings for accepting online contributions down to the bare minimum -- possibly to juice the numbers, and turning a blind eye towards the potential for fraud not just against the FEC, but against unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud.
The issue centers around the Address Verification Service (or AVS) that credit card processors use to sniff out phony transactions. I was able to contribute money using an address other than the one on file with my bank account (I used an address I control, just not the one on my account), showing that the Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors.
~~~~
DISCLAIMER: I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE "EXPERIMENTS" SO I'M HESITANT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE ALL AUTHENTIC. AT THE SAME TIME I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DONATE TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN TO PROVE THEM RIGHT.
Update: Instapundit notes that "if you split the tip between two homeless guys, they can outvote the waiter.
Yesterday on my way to lunch at Olive Garden, I passed one of the homeless guys in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."
Once in Olive Garden my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful. As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pissed that I gave away the money he did earn. Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.
What did pre-legalization abortions look like in practice? There were physicians who ran abortion mills, physicians who did selected abortions on their own patients, physicians who worked patients in through loopholes in the law. In addition to physician abortionists, there were the professional non-physicians, often operating with training, equipment, medications, and back-up provided by physicians. Here are more representative stories of pre-legalization abortions:
The last murder of an abortion clinic worker was 10 years ago Thursday.
~~~
~~~
What is FOCA?
A government may not
(1) deny or interfere with a womans right to choose
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
Section 6 adds:
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The section highlighted above in bold italics means that FOCA, if passed, will accomplish two things:
it would invalidate all current and future statutes, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders, decisions, policies, or practices--at any level of government--that regulate or restrict abortion in any way;
it would mandate taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services (not to do so would discriminate against the "rights" of abortion set forth in the bill).
The National Organization of Women says that FOCA "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies." Planned Parenthood says FOCA "would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the rights protected."
What are some of these state laws? The Family Research Council has complied the following list:
All 50 states have abortion reporting requirements
46 states have conscience-protection laws for individual health-care providers
44 states have laws about parental notification
40 states have laws restricting late-term abortions
38 states have bans on partial-birth abortions
33 states have laws requiring counseling before an abortion
16 states have laws about having ultrasounds before an abortion
Do you know what you get if you run a DNA test on an embryo, a fetus, and a baby? Human, I expect, and I would be very shocked to hear anyone even try to maintain otherwise. Too easy to take samples to labs and have the matter settled once and for all. I mean, you could hardly screen for Down Syndrome in utero if you didn't know where in the human DNA sequence to look for the genetic problem, could you? In the case of a human pregnancy, "embryo" is an early stage in human development. "Fetus" is a later stage in human development. "Baby" is, in Abortion Rights terms, a still later stage in human development. What cannot be so easily escaped at this point is that we are talking about an early stage in human development: the developing human being is not fully developed but is fully human. The Abortion Rights supporters have long confused the two issues, equating "human" with a certain developmental stage. This is the ground on which they are, factually, simply wrong. We have some options in bringing this to light. We could factually call that which is aborted:
human life in the early stages of development
the embryonic (or fetal) stage of human development
developing humans at the embryonic (or fetal) stage.
Note: At 4:48pm central, a call was made to the Clarion Hotel in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The clerk was asked to confirm whether a discount was offered to patients at the Cherry Hill Womens Center (abortion clinic). The female clerk answered, Yes. The rate would be $59 dollars a night instead of $109. The caller than said: Let me get this straight, if I KILL my baby, I get a discount from your hotel. If I KEEP my baby, I dont.
The clerk answered, Yes.
Wow. Just wow.
~~~
On the "Born Alive" act
Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.
This is the bill that Obama voted against even allowing the bill to leave committee and be voted on by the full Senate and voted "present" when it was voted on.
In the middle of 1998, the state of Kansas instituted a mandatory reporting policy that required Tiller to submit information about the abortions that he performs. The Kansas Department of Health and Environmental Statistics has recently published this information: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/absumm.html.
The information sends a clear message: the majority of late-term abortions are purely elective. They typically involve healthy babies and healthy mothers. If you are inclined to disagree, or if you have a hard time believing that mainstream abortion practitioners would be willing to kill babies that are months from being born, then I ask that you continue reading. You will be amazedand hopefully outragedwhen you see the data for yourself.
So we have 644,197 people eligible to be registered in Marion County/Indianapolis, and 677,401 people registered. Congratulations go to Indianapolis for having 105% of its residents registered!
Just remember, the New York Times will continue to tell its readers that theres no voter fraud across the country and that efforts to try and clear the rolls of bogus entries is somehow illegal or restricts the rights of those people to vote. The Times is wrong.
The New York Times and Washington Post forgets that every bogus vote cast or indicated means that your legitimate vote gets offset by someone who is voting illegally. Your right to vote is harmed by these illegal and bogus votes. Thats the crime committed here, not trying to clear the voter rolls of bogus names, preventing those who are barred from voting (illegal aliens or felons or dead people) from casting votes, and ensuring that the voter rolls are accurate.
MORE REPORTS OF MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD BY ACORN. "They turn in 5000 new voter registration forms in Indiana, election officials start checking them and give up after the first 2100 were found to be fraudulent." Where's the Department of Justice on this? CNN report below.
News articles on "voter registration fraud" (or voter fraud)
O'jahnae Smith is ready and registered to vote this November.
There's only one problem: She's 7 years old.
The Connecticut girl is 11 years too young - and nobody in her family knows how she ended up on a voter registration form submitted by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Investigative reporter Amy Davis shows you how hundreds of voters could sway this year's election -- voters who are not even alive.
"All-in-all, a great person, a great woman, just a wonderful person" is how Alexis Guidry described her mother to Local 2 Investigates.
"As far back as I can remember, they've always voted in the election," Guidry said of her parents.The March 2008 Primary was no exception.
Voting records show Alexis' mom, Gloria Guidry, cast her ballot in person near her South Houston home."It was just very shocking, a little unsettling," said Alexis Guidry.
It's unsettling because Gloria Guidry died of cancer 10 months before the March Primary.
"She'd be very upset," Guidry said when asked what her mom would think.
The New Mexico Republican Party said they believe 28 people voted fraudulently in an Albuquerque state House district in the June Democratic primary.
The Republican Party found the problems in a review of 92 newly registered voters in House District 13.State Rep. Justine Fox-Young, an Albuquerque Republican, said a number of the suspected fraudulent voters voted by absentee ballot.
Republicans released details for 10 of those votes. The registration cards that were filled out had no social security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdates for the voters.
LANSING -- Michigan's attorney general is charging a former employee of a community organizing group with forgery after he says the man falsely submitted six voter registration forms.
Antonio Johnson is being held in Jackson County on a parole violation. The 23-year-old is accused of falsifying the registration forms between May 20 and June 6 in Jackson.
He worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Jackson Clerk Lynn Fessel suspected a problem and asked police to investigate. Two residents said they didn't sign the forms and that some information used to complete the forms was incorrect.
(Ellen's not: This means that the forger didn't sign up "Mickey Mouse"- he signed up real people again. )
