Unfortunately for America, Justice Ruth Ginsburg is not the only devotee of Eugenics loose in the nation’s capitol.

WorldNetDaily reports (07.13.09) that President Obama’s “Science Czar”, Professor John Holdren, is an advocate of fascist policies to control population growth and save “Mother Earth” from sundry apocalyptic threats. This former “Teresa Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy” at the Kennedy School was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 20 as the Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology.

It is probably safe to assume that many members of the U.S. Senate were unaware of his radical policy views at the time of his confirmation, despite the fact that he proudly proclaimed many of his outrageous views in a landmark book published in 1977. Co-authored with Paul Ehrlich, the book was entitled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.

Professor Holdren advocated an international police force to ensure that human populations were forcibly reduced across the globe. This global regime would also have authority to allocate both natural and renewable resources based upon optimal population figures for each region of the planet.

In Holdren’s opinion, the U.S. Constitution could be stretched to accommodate compulsory abortions and forced sterilization.

Holdren and his compatriots went so far as to argue that international law should be established to mandate farming-out children born to teenage mothers to families deemed “more suitable”. (One is tempted to accuse Holdren of direct theft from the Official Nazi Playbook on this point).

The WorldNetDaily article documents the rabbit trail Professor Holdren followed when the ‘70s fad of a “population crisis” morphed into the present hype about “global warming”. To be current, Holdren has added a clarion call for a global tax on “greenhouse emissions”, perhaps to pay for his abortion police teams.

As the popular media continues to sedate the American public with stories about Michael Jackson, it is vital that patriots confront the reality that some scary people – very scary people – have gained significant power in the nation’s capital. The drug-induced, utopian fantasies of 60s radicals have been carefully nurtured, repackaged and brought into the White House; these notions now appear as cap-and-trade taxes, government-run health care and nationalized credit markets.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Many times over the fifteen years we’ve been battling Planned Parenthood and other allied social engineers, we have charged that the “Sanger Vision” is alive and driving the pro-abortion movement. And each time we are not-so-politely rebuffed and ridiculed by the Abortion Lobby: Sanger may have advocated the purification of the human race through birth control, abortion and forced sterilization – but those thoughts have long been removed from our thoughts, they regularly protest. Please ignore the fact that we target blacks, Hispanics and the poor with our services with great success.

Despite such blather, truth is a powerful thing; it manages to seep out beneath the most tightly locked doors.

In an astonishing interview with the New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg boldly admits that she has always understood Roe v. Wade as a mechanism for ensuring that “populations we don’t want to have too many of” would be reduced through the execution of their undesirable offspring. She goes on to bemoan the fact that her colleagues in the federal bench have blocked efforts to provide tax-payer funding of abortions for these “undesirable” peoples.

As we watch the opening hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, it is well for the nation to take due note of Ginsburg’s comments. It is absolutely appalling that a sitting justice of the U.S. Supreme Court could publicly proclaim such views and remain a member of the bench; it is now beyond debate that she should never have been confirmed in the first place. Nominated by President Clinton, Ginsburg sailed through her confirmation – despite a long and sordid history of working for organizations like the ACLU.

Will Sotomayor be allowed to join Ginsburg on the court without careful scrutiny of her dark prejudices? Does she share Ginsburg’s belief that there are various classes of people – some worthy of survival, and others which should be “weeded out”?

Given the fact that Sotomayor shares Ginsburg’s commitment to abortion “rights” and judicial activism, these are legitimate and crucial questions which ought preoccupy members of the United States Senate these summer weeks.

Is there a hero in the Senate willing to confront Judge Sotomayor and pull the truth out of her?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” But actions in Washington over the past few weeks prove that ideology is sitting firmly in the front of the class, and science may have been kicked out of the room, as Congress narrowly passed their massive tax on energy (cap and trade bill), and the Obama administration has tried to silence a dissenter on global warming in the EPA.

In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, and anthropogenic global warming. He called for the agency to look at the science behind the arguments which he accurately claimed had “gaping scientific holes” in them. With such an honest assessment of the science, the new administration, with its profound respect for science over ideology, would certainly welcome the report which was replete with peer-reviewed research. Apparently not. Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. He said, “There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” In other words, he was censored.
It’s easy to see why, since his report didn’t jive with the ideology already heavily invested in by the administration. Carlin states in his opening remarks, “The issue is whether the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test—conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding.” He continues, that the AGW argument,“is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it. Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to.”

The data Carlin is referring to, is actual, not computer modeled, global temperatures which have remained flat over the past decade, and even cooled slightly. In fact, just five months ago, all four major global temperature tracking outlets released their 2008 data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree. In other words, the drop in global temperatures last year alone, in spite of increasing amounts of carbon emissions concentrations over the past ten years, was enough to erase all of the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. The tracking agencies indicate that it was the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. To my knowledge, not everyone quit driving cars last year, or quit exhaling, neither did all the coal-fired plants discontinue operations last year, and thermostats were not set uniformly to something other than 72 degrees.

Since the actual empirical science does not support the Jeremiads of the global warming doomsayers, their conviction in their pseudo-science is reduced to, gasp, a matter of faith. The ardent believers are many, and most are those who mock Christians and other people of faith. How’s that for an amusing dichotomy? Even Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.”

The backlash against the “consensus” is growing, as the scientific community is finally speaking up about the evidence. Joanne Simpson, recently retired Ph.D. in meteorology expressed relief that she is now able to speak frankly about the fraudulence of the AGW alarmists. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who participated on the UNs IPCC climate committee claims that man-made warming is “the worst scientific scandal in history,” and a group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding that the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is “settled,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

It looks more and more like this administration doesn’t respect science, but respects the pseudo-science that will provide justification for their ideological objectives, including the asinine assault on our economy called “cap and trade.” And they’re doubling down with a new G8 accord to reduce our carbon output to 1910 levels, committing, as the Investor’s Business Daily puts it, “economic suicide.” Somehow I don’t think this level of respect for science is the “change” we “hoped” for.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

A groundbreaking study by the Elliot Institute has just been published, and finds that an abortion history is “particularly damaging to the parenting process”.

The article has been published in Current Women’s Health Reviews. It looks at the psychological reactions to various types of child loss and how they might affect a mother’s relationship with children born after the pregnancy loss.

“Losing a child before or at birth, for any reason, can be a profound source of suffering,” said the study’s author, Professor Priscilla Coleman. “However, the emotional responses after an induced abortion are more likely to go unresolved and to persist for a longer time period.”

“In many cases, women may suppress thoughts and emotions related to an abortion because they have not been able to process or openly discuss negative emotions,” Coleman added in a press release from the Elliot Institute.

Coleman pointed out that a modest estimate predicts some 130,000 new cases of abortion-related mental health problems each year.

A recent study out of New Zealand, conducted by a pro-abortion researcher, found no evidence that abortion provided any mental health benefits to women, while many studies have shown profound negative consequences for women who succumb to Planned Parenthood’s propaganda.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Freedom! How sweet the word, and how profound the meaning. Men have died, and been willing to sacrifice all they had, for freedom. Our Fourth of July celebrations are based on that Declaration to the English throne, “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

To all freedom loving Americans, William Wallace’s cry of “Freedom!” stirs our souls as he was beheaded by Longshanks’ minions in “Braveheart.” We are moved by the images of bravery against seemingly insurmountable odds, as Benjamin Martin rallies the revolutionary forces with a war-torn flag in the “Patriot.” But the real-life heroes, political and military alike, who have fought for, and defended individual liberty and freedom touch our collective consciousness with profundity unmatched by depictions on the silver screen.

I approach this Independence Day celebration with sadness commensurate with my aforementioned respect and gratitude, for our freedom is being sacrificed, one bill at a time, by an out-of-control federal government. With each bill passed and signed, government grows. With such expansion of government, control over our individual lives increases exponentially, and the erosion of personal freedom and liberty is unmistakable. This erosion has accelerated at a dizzying pace in the first six months of the year. As 1776 marked the birth of American freedom, 2009 may well mark its demise.

A quadrupling of the budget deficit places not just this generation, but future generations in financial thralldom. Current tax receipts collected by the treasury will barely be enough to cover the yearly interest on the new federal debt.

So to expand receipts, more taxes need to be levied and collected. The declared intent to allow expiration of the Bush tax cuts will amount to the largest tax increase ever imposed on the country as the average American will see a tax increase between $2100 and $5600 annually, according to the Wall Street Journal.

But wait, there’s another bigger tax increase threatening us. The Waxman-Marky “cap and trade” bill will impose another $1600-$2400 annually in increased cost for all of our energy consumption. And that’s regardless of income bracket, thereby constituting the largest regressive tax ever imposed on us. Speaking of energy, remember what Obama has said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…” Looks like he meant it. The government means to tax us into behaving the way it thinks we should.

The more the government withholds from our paychecks or requires from our quarterly tax filings, the greater the infringement on our financial liberty. What are you willing to give up from your person standard of living in order to pay an energy tax fraudulently sold to us in the name of “saving the planet?” Since our incomes are largely fixed, what will you sacrifice? A car? Your house? A yearly family vacation? Who can deny that our freedoms are severely impinged upon by such ludicrous and unwarranted governmental expansion? Perhaps only the clueless or the ideologues.

For generations, America has attracted the most gifted and visionary minds of the world. Not just for the individual freedom available here, but for the financial freedom afforded men and women of great talent and vision in seeing their work yield fruits of pecuniary bounty. But by targeting the most successful amongst us for increased tax burden, and even seeking to limit compensation by the appointment of a “Pay Tsar” in the White House, our freedom to earn is under assault.

Federal usurpation of our health care constitutes an erasure of personal freedom of unparalleled proportions. When the government defines benefits under their plan, they can set the terms for participation in the benefits. They make the life and death decisions for us, and our ability to choose is negated. As President Obama said last week, “Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller,” when referring to end-of-life health care decisions for the elderly or the terminally ill. Granted, our freedom may be limited by current insurance coverage in making such decisions, but to completely abrogate that right and have the government make such decisions for us is unconscionable, and dare I say it? Un-American. That brings them one step closer to telling us how to live our lives, what to eat and drink, and mandating “risk-free” behavior.

And in true Orwellian fashion, “Newspeak” is being codified into federal law. Just as George Orwell’s “1984” defined acceptable and unacceptable speech in order to “narrow the range of thought,” so likewise passage of hate crime legislation, and universal distribution of Department of Homeland Security encyclicals seek to coerce politically correct speech and thought, further infringing upon our First Amendment rights. According to DHS, all who disagree with the administrations’ official policies are regarded as enemies of the state.

Our majestic “Old Glory,” which has stood as a symbolic ensign of freedom and liberty to the world, is being trampled upon by the very stewards elected to “preserve us a nation.” As our banner is sullied and loses its luster, I sorrow at the apparent demise of a great nation once dedicated to the protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America, I have loved you and what you have stood for, but I hardly recognize you now.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

A seemingly accelerating trend with Americans is to look with skepticism and a jaundiced perspective at business, capitalism, and the profit motive. In spite of efforts by some to rewrite history, those of us who are students of history recognize the critical contribution of the profit motive in the emergence of America as an economic power. The fact is, capitalism and the profit motive created a global power out of a rag-tag collection of British colonies.

Business and the profit motive have turned us from an agrarian to a high-tech, producing and consuming nation. All of us are dependent upon business and the profit motive for everything we do every day. From the manufacturer of the bed we arise from and the alarm clock we wake up to, to the toothpaste, shampoo, and comb we use in the morning. The beverage we imbibe to give us a kick-start in the morning and the vehicle we drive to work are products of once small businesses that have grown sometimes to global proportions. If any of those products or services we depend on get too expensive, we start shopping for cheaper replacements.

Most of us even work for a small business driven by that evil profit motive; those firms across the fruited plain that market and sell products, provide advice and services, and fill the needs of people from all walks of life. They pay us to fill a specific function within the company to help them service their customers more efficiently and cost-effectively. And most of them pay another 30% of our salaries or wages in the form of benefits (which Congress also wants to tax) to help retain quality employees. And according to Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University an amazing 89 percent of us are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with our jobs with those evil profit-mongers.

As a matter of fact, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, pay 45% of total U.S. private payroll, generate 80% of new jobs annually, create more than 50% of nonfarm private GDP, comprise 97% of all identified exporters, and produce 26% of the known export value to our GDP.

Yet every time new governmental regulation is written by which companies must abide, the costs increase. Whenever the government increases taxes on companies, the costs increase again. In order to stay in business, they must pass those costs on to their customers, or find other ways to reduce costs like eliminating jobs. That’s why it makes no sense to tax companies since we all end up individually paying their taxes for them via increased prices for their products and services.

And it’s not just small business that makes our quality of life what it is, but that evil big brother of small business; BIG business. What an evil concept, to sell things that people want and need at prices that most people can afford (after all, they want to sell as many of their “widgets” as possible). And they do so with a profit motive in order to share their success with those who ponied-up the capital (investors, silent partners, share-holders) facilitating their business ventures. Remember, if they over-price their widgets, they price themselves out of the market. If they under-price their widgets, they’re not going to remain viable, and will have to lay off all their employees and won’t be able to pay all those taxes the government is requiring of them. Then their employees will have to hope they can find another widget company to replace the job they lost.

The media, Hollywood, and even some of our fellow citizens bash “big pharma,” big oil, or big retailers like Wal-Mart. But in reality what do those “big” evil companies do? They provide needed products and services at reasonable prices, enabling our national economic engine, and our quality of life, to keep chugging along. They have limited control over much of their expenses, but to be able to continue doing what they do, they charge a modest profit to ensure their viability in future years, and allow us to have a job!

Right here in the Pocatello area, over 30,000 jobs are supported by these evil profit-motive-driven companies. That includes over 600 jobs at On Semiconductor, 350 at Simplot, 550 at Union Pacific Railroad, and over 400 at Wal-Mart. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates there are 2,346 employers in Pocatello. The Private Sector includes 2,233 firms, which make up 95.18% of companies hiring in Pocatello

Too many of us rely on fallacious typecasts and stereotypes of what business and the profit motive do. Rather than relying on our empirical observations of their contributions to our quality of life, we allow the media, Hollywood, or anti-business kvetching to taint our perceptions. The profit motive, capitalism, and the free-enterprise system (which frankly we haven’t truly had for nearly 70 years because of intense governmental regulation), are the backbone to our economic system, and as such, are the key to future growth and prosperity individually and collectively. Government encroachment and increased regulation stymie future potential growth, our quality of life, and our job security.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Attorney General Eric Holder told a group of liberal lawyers last week that he thinks it is time for Congress to enact new, broader “Hate Crimes” legislation to “stop violence masquerading as political activism”.

As justification for a grand expansion of his powers, Holder pointed to the killing of notorious abortionist George Tiller.

According to the Kansas Star-Telegram, Holder said that to stop such violence, Congress should pass updated “hate-crimes” legislation to more effectively prosecute those accused of committing violent attacks based on gender, disability or sexual orientation.

It is certainly not obvious how the killing of Tiller qualifies as a “hate crime” motivated by “gender or disability or sexual orientation.” We can assume that the perpetrator did, in fact, hold hatred in his heart for George Tiller; it is reasonable to further assume that most killers hold intense animosity toward their victims.

But back to Holder’s call for legislation: The murderer of Tiller apparently did so because Tiller made millions slaying innocent children in the womb, (or partially out of their mother’s womb) – not because he was a male. While Tiller suffered from a profound moral disability, we have never heard anyone proposing special protections for people of blackened conscience. And, we can safely assume that Tiller was not a practicing homosexual or transvestite – since he was married and had children.

So how could Holder’s power grab possibly remedy the rare act of violence against an abortion provider?

One anticipates that Holder will propose to Congress that criminal violence against an abortion provider is, by definition, an act of gender discrimination because the abortionist practices his death art on women. So, even white, heterosexual males of reasonable intelligence and ability will garner special protections under Holder’s plan because of the gender of their clients.

This takes the concept of “hate crimes” to a new level of absurdity. The notion itself is, at its core, disturbing because it punishes people not for what they did, but for what they think. That puts judges in the position of playing God – a sorry swipe at justice. But this new initiative by the nation’s highest law enforcement officer is scary stuff. Holder reveals himself as a poorly trained lawyer with a brazen ideological and personal agenda.

It does not take much imagination or paranoia to see Holder expanding his tortured definitions of “hate” and “discrimination” at some point to include even peaceful actions aimed at ending abortion.

Let us see what Pelosi’s Congress does with this diabolical proposal.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

It was spring, 2007. The blossoms were budding on the plentiful cherry trees in Washington, D.C., belying the storm fomenting within the halls of Congress and in the national media newsrooms. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had just dismissed a handful of U.S. Attorney’s, and the media as well as the opposition in Congress, were calling for his head and denouncing the firings, even though the president and the Attorney General, were fully within their rights and the law to dismiss them.

Fast forward to 2009. A new President has rolled out a massive “stimulus” bill purportedly to stimulate the economy, although a closer reading reveals the primary beneficiary will be expanded government growth. An Inspector General, who does not serve at the leisure of the president, as the U.S. Attorneys do, discovers fraud in the disposition of government funds by one of the new President’s ardent supporters. The supporter, who is also Mayor of Sacramento, likely will not get any of the stimulus money because of his misuse of AmeriCorps funds. The White House promptly fires the Inspector General for doing his job.

While we wouldn’t expect Congressional leaders to question the firing or call for hearings as they did of Gonzales, certainly the media will be all over such obvious cronyism and duplicity. Right? Wrong! It seems the mainstream media is so enamored with Obama that they refuse to report anything that may reflect poorly on him. Perhaps they’re also trying to avoid being taken over like the auto industry, like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela. Hardly a word of suspicion has been uttered by the media that now will broadcast from the White House, and whose anchors participate on a strategy and propaganda call orchestrated by the White House daily.

Inspectors General are hired by the government to investigate waste and fraud. Obviously, Gerald Walpin, the IG for AmeriCorps, a government program which pays volunteers for community service, was doing his job. He filed two reports exposing gross misappropriation by Kevin Johnson, former NBA star, who is also the Mayor of Sacramento and an Obama supporter. Walpin found Johnson had failed to use their federal grant money for the purposes specified, and had used the funds for, among other things, “driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.” Walpin reported that as much as $850,000 had been misappropriated. That’s a lot of car washes!

What makes this firing of Walpin even more egregious is the fact that Senator Barack Obama, in 2008, cosponsored legislation that was designed to assure the political independence of Inspectors General. According to that law (do you get the uneasy feeling that laws don’t seem to matter to our chief executive who is constitutionally the top law-enforcer?), the president must first send a letter to Congress declaring his intention to fire an Inspector General and provide the specific reasons why. It can’t be done as an afterthought as was attempted the next day by Obama. That letter is also designed to serve as a statutory 30 day notice to Congress of a dismissal. And yes, that 30 day statutory notice was required by the legislation that Obama cosponsored a mere two years ago. But that’s history, and one thing we’ve learned is that this president seems to have a hard time with history.

The law and constitutional limitations don’t seem to have much weight with this administration. Hillary Clinton was ineligible according to the Constitution, to be Secretary of State, having voted for a pay raise for that post. At last count, eight Obama appointees have a problem with paying taxes. Appointment of numerous “Tsars” within the administration is unconstitutional, even by Sen. Robert Byrd’s reckoning. The manner and details of the auto industry bailout and forced bankruptcy are illegal. The administration forced AIG to renege on contractual retention bonuses. President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law, breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them.

I don’t think any of us who think about our politics, versus “feel” about them, are surprised by this duplicity. You remember all that talk about a new openness and transparency in Washington with the new administration? It obviously was just a ruse. With each passing day it becomes increasingly obvious that while our President can give a good talk and say some good things, his words are illusory and mask what’s really being done behind closed doors. What was Chicago-style politics has now gone big-time. Welcome to Washington-style politics!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

We the Undersigned People of the State of Idaho hereby request that the Idaho
Legislature and Governor commence immediate action to enforce the statements as set
forth in House Joint Memorial No. 4 concerning the Constitutional violations of the Tenth
Amendment, said statements are as follows:

“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by members of the First Regular Session of the Sixteenth
Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of
Idaho hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the Federal government by the
Constitution of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as
our agent to cease and desist, effective immediately mandates that are beyond the scope of
these constitutionally delegated powers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all compulsory federal regulation that directs states to comply
under criminal or civil penalties or sanctions, or requires state to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited.”

It is recognized, that the greatest impediment to the above requested enforcement of saidTenth Amendment action is the alleged dependency of the State of Idaho on federal funding
grants conditioned on restrictive mandates and spending guidelines. Therefore, we the
people of the State of Idaho hereby request that the Idaho Legislature and Governor
refuse any and all federal funding that impose any mandates, restrictions, or spending
guidelines that may hinder the complete freedom of action by the State of Idaho to exercise
it’s lawful tenth Amendment rights.

And finally, we the people of the State of Idaho also request that the Idaho Legislature
and Governor support and enforce a proposed bill now being drafted known tentatively as
the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” (short title).

Name Address Idaho City/Town Reg. Voter ?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
Return Completed form to Dorothy Walker: 1206 Hall st. Grangeville, Idaho 83530: 208-983-2344

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.