Archive for June 4, 2012

Dr. James Dobson is taking a defiant stand on Obamacare and issuing a loud and clear message to President Obama: “I WILL NOT pay the surcharge for abortion services. … So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation.”

The evangelical Christian author and founder of Focus on the Family minced no words when he accused Obama of deceiving the American public in his exclusive WND column, “The president’s Obamacare lies.”

Dobson notes that the president issued the following statement on the night of Sept. 9, 2009, when he gave an address to a joint session of Congress in an effort push members of the House and Senate to pass his health-care bill:

“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

However, he said, “The speech was filled with promises and assurances that have proved to be shockingly false, and the president’s premise was based on deception.”

In numerous speeches, Obama assured his pro-choice constituency that coverage for abortion would be “job one” within his health-care plan, he noted.

“I knew from deep within my soul that the president was not being truthful about this matter of life and death,” Dobson recalled, noting that Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., was so outraged by what he was hearing that he blurted out, “You lie!”

By March 2010, the Obama administration had officially approved the first instance of taxpayer-funded abortions under Obamacare – giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the legislation in preparation for a $5 billion national roll-out.

“The Big Promise of Sept. 9 had already been abandoned,” Dobson lamented.

Read more here.

“It is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity more than youth. We’re all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young.”
Jonah Goldberg, May 2012

Goldberg continued, claiming that young people are “so frickin’ stupid about some things.” Many people in my generation (I’m currently 21 days shy of my 21st birthday) were immediately offended by that statement. I can certainly see their point. Being called “frickin’ stupid” isn’t really the highlight of one’s day. However, I can’t help but agree with Mr. Goldberg. Yet, I’m more inclined to use “ignorant” rather than “stupid.” Twenty-somethings are far too often motivated by feelings, not fact. We’re caught up in a state of blissful ignorance, a state few proactively try to escape. A large majority of my generation, therefore, remains ignorant and easily swept up by our pleasure-seeking, morally corrupt, liberalized culture.

I don’t mean to say that I have escaped the youthful curse of ignorance. I’ll admit, I’m just as ignorant as many of my peers. However, there’s a difference between acknowledging your own ignorance and accepting it as reality. I accept the fact that 20 years is not enough to learn everything the world has to teach me. Heck, 70 years isn’t even enough. I accept the fact that I’m still naïve and time is the only cure. However, I try to educate myself as much as possible to counteract my own shortcomings. Yet, I can’t say that many people my age have gotten past the “I’m invincible and know everything” stage. I only know that because I’m guilty of such a mindset from time to time. This is exactly what Jonah Goldberg was talking about. For example, too many young people today are inclined to support socialism or Marxism over capitalism because it “feels good.” They’re wrapped up in the meaningless fluff words like “social justice” and “inclusion.” Few people in my generation move beyond superficial emotions. We’re inclined to believe the liberal capitalism-hating culture around us and rarely take a second look at ourselves.

Similarly, we are very capable of being swept up by the culture all around us. Far too many students are liberalized and good morals are all but forgotten For example, last night I was flipping through the channels and stumbled across the MTV Movie Awards. After being bombarded with raunchy humor, several bleeped expletives and drug-promoting, women-bashing rap music, I had to turn the channel. And yes, to answer your question, I am twenty going on thirty-five. However, a large segment of my age group is swept up by this dangerous culture and our morals are going down the tubes. It’s no wonder that “YOLO” (For those of you who have been living under a rock, that stands for “You Only Live Once”) has become a common phrase in recent days. I know it’s natural for young people to be reckless and stupid; sometimes we have to learn lessons the hard way. Yet, it’s important to realize that this country’s future stands on our shoulders. If we’re going to save the republic, my generation needs a large heaping of character and common sense.

It’s no surprise that politicians scramble for the youth vote. Far too many people my age are swept up by the liberal, emotional culture all around us. We’re enthralled by the countless celebrities who support liberal policies instead of agreeing with the educated opinions of those who have been in the “real world” for years. We’re a big voting bloc because we can be easily swayed by something shiny and new. Stick a celebrity in a political ad and we’re sold. We’re more inclined to follow what we feel rather than what we know. Now when I say “we,” I mean the majority of young people. There are a few of us in the trenches fighting for our nation and accepting the reality around us. However, we are currently in the minority.

Read more here.

China’s communist regime is negotiating private deals with American film studios and financing the purchase of America’s second largest theater chain, leaving experts and human rights activists fearing the spread of dictatorial soft power and censorship to American shores.

“The Chinese Communist party has a program that they call ‘the Great Propaganda,’ and its aim is to export Chinese social power,” said former political prisoner Dr. Yang Jianli. “Cinema is the perfect way to do that.”

The Chinese government is making a push to export its influence overseas by helping companies tap into foreign markets, including the U.S. As part of that mission, it is providing an undisclosed amount of financing to help China’s sixth-wealthiest man, Wang Jianlin, purchase AMC Entertainment, the second largest theater chain in the U.S., for $2.6 billion. The move would make Wang’s Wanda Group the largest chain of movie theaters in the world.

“The Chinese are overpaying, but then again they’re not looking to maximize profits,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert for the conservative Heritage Foundation. “They have a much more complex slate of goals and that is to please the state above all else.”

The steep price for the theater chain does not reflect dwindling movie attendance in the United States, which is at a 16-year low. The acquisition has left observers, including Kelley Currie, a human rights expert for the pro-Democracy Project 2049 Institute, worried about the future of American film companies.

“There are perfectly legitimate business reasons why a company like Wanda would acquire a company like AMC, but you must take them together with concerns over censorship and the political nature of Chinese business,” she said. “Wanda is technically private, but it’s still going to have a party cell in it and a political commissar that makes sure it toes the party line.”

China is making a big “soft power” push to “increase its prestige overseas,” Currie said, and Wang’s expansion into U.S. cinema is only the latest example of the billionaire businessman chasing the state party’s agenda.

Wang, who joined the Communist Party in 1996 and served as a delegate to the 2007 Party Congress, expanded his real estate business from residential to commercial and tourism properties as the government called for improvements in each sector. The purchase of AMC is just another evolution of the Chinese call to “go global.”

“You don’t get to be a billionaire in China without being intertwined with the state,” Scissors said.

Read more here.

Police in Taos, New Mexico have spent close to a month investigating a case where a man was allegedly beaten after removing political signs placed on his property without his permission.

Across the road, a candidate for District Court Judge Ernestina Cruz was holding an event, and supporters seemingly placed signs on the man’s lawn to direct attendees where to go.

“I told them I thought it was very distasteful to put these signs in front of my property,” Roy Cunnyngham said, so he packed them in the car to return to their rightful owners.

At that point, a man allegedly crossed the street and told Cunnyngham to put the signs back where they were. When Cunnyngham refused, he says, the man “pounded [him] in the chest.”

Sgt. John Wentz’s report elaborates: “All of the sudden two more men showed up and started to hit and shove Mr. Cunnyngham.”

Cunnyngham’s wife Joni also told police that she got out of the car to help, but someone held her from behind and kept her in place while the men beat her husband. The couple’s son was also shoved aside, and prevented from helping .

Read more here.

Click it or ticket. It’s not just for people anymore — at least in the Garden State.

Police and animal control officers are authorized to cite drivers with unrestrained animals in the car. Yes, that includes the back of a pickup truck too. Violators can be fined $250 to $1,000 per offense.

Ray Martinez, head of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, just wants to avoid distracted driving.

“People actually driving with a dog or a cat on their laps. It’s not cute. It’s actually dangerous for the driver. It’s dangerous for other drivers and it’s dangerous for that pet.”

Dogs can be placed in harnesses that click right into the seat belt buckle. Cats don’t take well to harnesses for the most part, so they need to go in a carrier. And the carrier needs to be buckled down.

Read more here.

Nobody said political activism was easy. Just ask Susan Emry, a 56-year-old mother of two living in San Luis Obispo, Calif., who decided earlier this year to help elect progressive candidates this November.

But what’s brought her trouble isn’t her politics. It’s her branding.

The name for her initiative: “Rock the Slut Vote.”

“Good ol’ Rush Limbaugh and his Sandra Fluke comment,” Emry said, referring to when the radio show host called a Georgetown student a “slut.” “That was kind of the catalyst right there. I asked, ‘How is this happening and what can I do?’ … I’ve never felt compelled to get involved, but it felt like such a targeted attack on women that the outrage just compelled me to do something.”

The website provides a litany of reasons why, politically speaking, you “might be a slut.” Such as : “If you’ve ever gone to Planned Parenthood”; “If you think being called a feminist is a compliment”; “If you don’t want your employer policing your health care”; and “What you do in your own bedroom is no one’s business.”

Slut-cred affirmed, users can then register to vote through the site.

Emry says she wants Rock the Slut Vote to be a humorous way to advance a serious message, but she also knows that the risqué name is part of the site’s appeal: “To me, Rock the Slut Vote is all about galvanizing and the shock value, to get enough attention to what was happening.”

The attention has come in, but it’s not always positive. Emry says she’s received “heavy negative reaction coming from the right, the far, far extreme right.”

“They use the most derogatory terms and, occasionally, threats even. Personal attacks. They go after your image, for instance. … Maybe I wasn’t as prepared to deal with that initially when I put up the website.”

Even some who might sympathize with Emry’s politics have raised questions about the name.

“Some women take the word ‘slut’ personally and can’t understand why anybody would embrace the word,” Emry said. “It’s not a word my generation, especially, tosses around lightly. … The important thing to do is to take the power away from the word, and the way I can do that is by using humor and satire. … It’s a word that the right tends to swing at people because it is so effective at silencing women.”

Read more here.

Chinese authorities have rounded up hundreds of activists in the capital Beijing, rights campaigners and petitioners said Monday, as they marked the 23rd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

The detentions came as Washington angered Beijing by calling for all those still jailed over the demonstrations on June 4, 1989 — when hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters were shot and killed by soldiers — to be freed.

The anniversary of the brutal army action in the heart of Beijing is always hugely sensitive, but particularly so this year ahead of a once-a-decade handover of power marred by fierce in-fighting in the ruling Communist Party.

“They brought in a lot of buses and were rounding up petitioners at the Beijing South rail station on Saturday night,” Zhou Jinxia, a petitioner from northeast China’s Liaoning province, told AFP.

“There were between 600 to 1,000 petitioners from all over China. We were processed, we had to register and then they started sending people back to their home towns.”

Police made it clear that the round up of petitioners — people who gather at central government offices in Beijing to seek redress for rights violations in their localities — was to prevent them from protesting on June 4, she said.

China still considers the June 4 demonstrations a “counter-revolutionary rebellion” and has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing or consider compensation for those killed, more than two decades later.

The government attempts to block any public discussion or remembrance of the events by hiding away key dissidents in the run-up to June 4 each year, taking them into custody or placing them under house arrest.

Any mention of the 1989 protests is banned in Chinese state media, and the subject is largely taboo in China. Searches on China’s popular social media sites for June 4, the number 23 and the word “candle” were blocked on Monday.

Despite the heightened security, numerous public events have been held around the nation to commemorate the “Tiananmen massacre” and demand democratic reforms.

More than 80 rights campaigners met in a Beijing square on Saturday, carrying banners and shouting slogans calling for a reassessment of the 1989 protests.

“We shouted ‘down with corruption’, and ‘protect our rights’,” Wang Yongfeng, a Shanghai activist, who attended the protest, told AFP.

“So many people were killed on June 4, we think the government should fully account for what happened.”

Photographs of the Saturday protest posted online showed demonstrators with large placards that said “remember our struggle for democracy, freedom and rights as well as those heroes who met tragedy.”

A similar protest occurred in a park in southeast China’s Guiyang city last week, with police subsequently taking into custody at least four of the organisers of the event, the Chinese Human Rights Defenders group said on its website.

The US State Department on Sunday called on Beijing to release those still serving sentences for their participation in the 1989 demonstrations and do more to protect the human rights of its citizens.

But foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin hit back a day later, saying Beijing expressed “strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition” to what he said were “groundless accusations”.

Read more here.

On June 7, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is holding a gay-themed event called the June Pride Ceremony. The hour-long gathering, scheduled to take place from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., will feature DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano as a guest speaker, among others. The purpose of the event is to commemorate June Pride Month, while also marking “a year of significant progress for DHS Pride and for the LGBT community.”

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) web site, DHS Pride, the group behind the event, is an employee association that represents gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered individuals working within DHS’s ranks. The organization seeks to showcase how these individuals work diligently to secure the U.S. Here are some of the goals the group works towards, as per its web site:

Identify and address issues particularly affecting Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender employees of the Department.
Support and guide the Department in the development and implementation of effective policies and practices for the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in all Departmental activities.
Serve as a resource and point of contact for its members, for those seeking or considering employment with the Department, and for other interested individuals or groups regarding LGBT issues and activities at DHS.

Read more here.