At the same time people of diverse faiths are coming together on the issue of the contraceptive mandate, it seems there’s a divisive battle raging between Jewish organizations and the Presbyterian Church (USA). The problems between the two faith groups center upon charges from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), among other groups, that allege that the Presbyterians, through their Israel-Palestine Mission Network (a missions arm), have made anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish statements.
An allegedly anti-Israel screen shot of an image that was purportedly posted on the IPMN-PCUSA Facebook page (Image Credit: CAMERA)
Another alleged screen shot from the IPMN-PCUSA Facebook page (Image Credit: CAMERA)
Another alleged screen shot from the IPMN-PCUSA Facebook page (Image Credit: CAMERA)
View original post here:
Jewish Groups Accuse Presbyterian Church of Facilitating Anti-Israeli & Anti-Semitic Sentiment
File under: “How to fake a walkback.” With its unconstitutional, coercive, discriminatory Obamacare abortion mandate under fire, the White House announced…nothing today. A supposed “accommodation” to the policy will result in no compromise in the impact of the HHS edict forcing religiously affiliated health care providers and employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and related services that violate the religious principles and freedom of the mandate’s targets. In fact, close observers say today’s announcement will make things worse. The deets : With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups. The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs. White House officials are likening it to the so-called Hawaii compromise. Phony baloney, say Catholic bishops: It’s difficult to know what people may mean by the “Hawaii compromise.” But a central feature of the Hawaii law is that every religious organization that is eligible for the exemption has to instruct all employees in how they can access all methods of contraception and sterilization locally “in an expeditious manner.” Just a few days ago the White House was saying that this is just about coverage, that no one has to be involved in getting people to the actual services they object to. It would be no improvement to say: “Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic.” The Administration’s press release of January 20 hinted at such a requirement. That would not be a compromise. In some ways it would be worse. As usual, this defiant administration keeps digging itself deeper. *** The Hill calls Obama’s announcement a “retreat.” The White House will announce a retreat from its controversial rule requiring religious organizations like charities and hospitals to include contraception in their healthcare plans. President Obama has come under heavy criticism from the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, Republicans and even some Democrats over the issue, and Vice President Biden has suggested a compromise could be worked out. A White House official on Friday confirmed an announcement on changing the rule would be made Friday. The White House is referring to the change as an accommodation. It’s not a retreat. It’s a re-trick. It’s not an accommodation. It’s an abomination. *** Update 11am Weekly Standard reporter John McCormak is on a conference call with White House officials providing background on the policy head fake. He tweets … Sr. admin off.: “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity will be required to reach out” to women to provide contraception So religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover contraception, and the abortion drug ella. Reporter asks if WH even consulted bishops before announcing ‘accommodation.’ Sr admin official won’t say. To clarify, religious groups have to contract with INSURERS who do offer the pills, then the insurers offers free pills to women. Update 12:26pm EST – From his brief press conference, Obama attacks “cynical” opponents of abortion mandate. He says “principle” of “access to free preventative care including contraceptive services” will stand. “Religious liberty will be protected.” Translation: You’re still screwed. *** Update: On Fox News, Kathleen The Shredder Sebelius attempts to defend the policy as a “no-cost strategy” by citing “actuaries” who claim that contraceptive coverage will actually “save money.” You know who she’s citing? The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. She repeatedly invokes “women’s health” to defend the edict. Sanger’s grim reapers have the rhetoric down pat. *** More from Steven Ertelt at Life News: Pro-Life Advocates Blast Revised Obama Pro-Abortion Mandate : Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association, called the revisions “offering a distinction without a difference to mute opposition.” He said the revision fits a pattern of contempt for conscience that includes how Obama “has gutted the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care, denied of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; lobbied the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations’ hiring rights; and issued a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government’s abortion ideology on every American.”
See the original post:
Obama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
Has the answer to a quick, painless, reversible male contraceptive been in doctors’ offices and commercially available for decades? One study says yes. Therapeutic ultrasounds machines, which are currently used to relieve injured joints with heat, according to the study by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill researchers, could someday be a viable form of contraceptives for men. According to the press release, the researchers were able to reduce sperm counts for a long period of time — two and a half months — in rats by giving the rodents’ testicles just two 15 minute doses of the ultrasound heat.
The seminiferous tubule on the left is from a testis that was not treated with ultrasound while the tubule on the right is from a testis that was treated with ultrasound. Note that the tubule from the control testis has many darkly stained germ cell nuclei. In contrast, the ultrasound-treated tubule is completely lacking testicular sperm and has lost almost all immature germ cells. (Photo: James Tsuruta/ Paul Dayton)
This ultrasound unit was used in the rat study. (Image: NewMaleContraction.org)
Read the rest here:
Birth Control for Men? Zap Testicles With a Dose of Ultrasound Heat
The Romney campaign is out with a new attack on Newt Gingrich, ” I Think Grandiose Thoughts “. (Via Memeorandum .) Althouse has the background, ” The Gingrich grandiosity “: Mitt Romney just put out this press release — a compendium of Newt Gingrich’s “grandiose thoughts” over the years. It’s pretty amusing, e.g., “I Have An Enormous Personal Ambition. I Want To Shift The Entire Planet. And I’m Doing It. … I Represent Real Power.” The occasion for the press release is, no doubt, the discussion of grandiosity at last night’s debate. Rick Santorum started it. The moderator, John King, had just pointed out that Gingrich has been saying there should be only one conservative in the race now off the seemingly inevitable Romney nomination, and it should be Gingrich, because Santorum doesn’t have “any of the knowledge for how to do something on this scale.”
TOS is terms of service. It turns out the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations launched a successful campaign to have WordPress censor Bare Naked Islam as a “hate site.” See Blazing Cat Fur, ” BarenakedIslam will rise again… ” Here’s the CAIR press release: ” Anti-Muslim Hate Site Removed After CAIR’s Intervention .” The group alleges that Bare Naked Islam threatened Muslims, and CAIR apparently moved aggressively against the blog for its leading role in attacking TLC’s program “All American Muslim.” I didn’t blog about that controversy because it wasn’t a controversy. Yeah, the press is stupidly mainstreaming the “religion of peace,” but if folks opposed the program they didn’t have to watch it. CAIR, on the other hand, campaigns to shut down dissenting voices critical of Islam. You don’t have a marketplace of ideas if powerful grievance-industry lobbying groups can shut you down with persistent complaints. That’s the progressive modus operandi, and it’s reprehensible and anti-American — which is why neo-commies and Jew-bashers are down with it . UPDATE : This story’s going viral. See Astute Bloggers, ” TIME TO BOYCOTT SHARIA COMPLIANT WORDPRESS ,” and Zilla of the Resistance, ” Free Speech Hating Peas in an Anti-Semitic Pod .” And also at Gateway Pundit, “WordPress Takes Down “ Bare Naked Islam” Blog After Threats From CAIR ,” and Ironic Surrealism, ” WordPress.com Dhimmis Bow to Their Islamic Masters Take Down ‘Bare Naked Islam’ Blog .”
Link:
Hamas-Tied Unindicted Co-Conspirator CAIR Launches TOS Attack on WordPress-Hosted Bare Naked Islam
It’s a start. Sorry I can’t get more enthusiastic than that. But knowing the long history of Fannie/Freddie execs escaping accountability, expectations must be managed. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is suing a half-dozen Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac officials for fraud and deception. “All individuals” will be held accountable for the Enron-style financial mess they made, according to the SEC. Here’s the official announcement from the SEC website: The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Commission in which each company agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct and not dispute, contest, or contradict the contents of an agreed-upon Statement of Facts without admitting nor denying liability. Each also agreed to cooperate with the Commission’s litigation against the former executives. In entering into these Agreements, the Commission considered the unique circumstances presented by the companies’ current status, including the financial support provided to the companies by the U.S. Treasury, the role of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as conservator of each company, and the costs that may be imposed on U.S. taxpayers. Three former Fannie Mae executives – former Chief Executive Officer Daniel H. Mudd, former Chief Risk Officer Enrico Dallavecchia, and former Executive Vice President of Fannie Mae’s Single Family Mortgage business, Thomas A. Lund – were named in the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The SEC also charged three former Freddie Mac executives — former Chairman of the Board and CEO Richard F. Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L. Cook, and former Executive Vice President for the Single Family Guarantee business Donald J. Bisenius — in a separate complaint filed in the same court. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company’s books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country’s investors.” The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with interest, permanent injunctive relief and officer and director bars against Mudd, Dallavecchia, Lund, Syron, Cook, and Bisenius. Both lawsuits allege that the former executives caused the federal mortgage firms to materially misstate their holdings of subprime mortgage loans in periodic and other filings with the Commission, public statements, investor calls, and media interviews. The suit involving the Fannie Mae executives also includes similar allegations regarding Alt-A mortgage loans. The suit against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges they made misleading statements — or aided and abetted others — between December 2006 and August 2008. The former Freddie Mac executives are alleged to have made misleading statements — or aided and abetted others – between March 2007 and August 2008. A glaring omission from the list: Former Fannie Mae head and Clinton/Obama pal Franklin Raines. Longtime readers will remember when the SEC was supposedly “cracking down” on Fannie Mae’s bogus accounting back in 2004 . I called Raines the Ken Lay of Fannie Mae in 2006, when he faced civil — but not criminal — charges stemming from his massive financial scammery. Two years later, he was buying a $5 million condo and still living high on the hog. Here’s what I reported in 2003 : Analysts unable to decipher Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s incomprehensible annual and quarterly reports have long suspected book-cooking with regard to their real cash flow. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Freddie Mac faces an SEC probe over possible accounting irregularities. Investigators will examine whether Freddie Mac may have deferred some income to smooth out results in future periods. The SEC will also probe the actions of the chief executive and chief financial officer, who were fired on Monday over an accounting review of earning restatements. The news sent stocks south and roiled some foreign markets as well. Clothed in politically correct fashions (“Catch the dream,” beckons Freddie Mac’s program to boost minority home ownership; a “leader in diversity,” brags a Fannie Mae press release), these public-private hybrids are two dangerous pigs feeding at the federal trough. Congress created Fannie Mae (nickname for the Federal National Mortgage Association) in 1938 to bolster home ownership during the Depression. Three decades later, it was partially privatized, but retained a host of government benefits. In 1970, Congress spawned Freddie Mac (nickname for the Federal Home Mortgage Corp.) to provide a lending competitor to Fannie Mae. Both entities expand the pool of money for home purchasers by snapping up loans that lenders make to homebuyers, and then converting those loans into relatively safe mortgage-backed securities that are attractive to investors. So, what’s wrong with this picture? As Fred Smith, president of the Washington, D.C-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, has noted, these financial beasts are a textbook example of “profit-side capitalism and loss-side socialism.” When things go right for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, they keep the profits. But when things go wrong, taxpayers — not just private shareholders, managers, and employees — will be on the hook. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae each receive $2.25 billion lines of credit with the U.S. Treasury. These special pipelines give the institutions an implied federal guarantee available to no other private sector competitors in the mortgage market. That protection makes them immune to the costs normally associated with riskier and riskier behavior. Moreover, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not required to pay state and local income taxes. In addition, the standard for how much money the government requires them to keep on hand in case homebuyers default on their mortgages is lower for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than for fully private banks and thrifts. The two corporations receive an estimated $10 billion a year in hidden taxpayer subsidies. Political appointees to the companies’ boards pocket millions in stock options to bolster support on Capitol Hill. Clinton-appointed board members at Fannie Mae include Marc Rich lawyer Jack Quinn and Janet Reno’s lieutenant at the Justice Department, Jamie Gorelick. At the helm of Fannie Mae is another Clinton appointee, Franklin Raines, who was paid more than $4 million and had almost $6 million in unexercised stock options in his first year at the helm. Cheerleaders in both major political parties have opposed privatizing Fannie and Freddie. If Martha Stewart is the face of capitalist excess, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the poster children for government-sponsored gluttony. The potential fall of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae could rival the savings and loan collapse of the 1980s. Too bad the Martha bashers, blind to the far greater catastrophes of market socialism, won’t pay attention until it’s too late. All of which makes Newt Gingrich’s continued defense of the GSE racket all the more stomach-turning. We need people in Washington who will clean up the mess. Not people who have cleaned up on it and keep rationalizing the self-dealing ad nauseum. *** Previous: The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac racket Spanking Fannie Mae Spankin Fannie Mae, contd. The mother of all financial scandals Crackdown on Fannie Mae corruptocrats Fannie Mae fallout Fannie Mae fatcat/friend of Obama buys $4.9 million penthouse More Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac blogging
Excerpt from:
One cheer for the belated SEC lawuit against Fannie/Freddie execs
Not much “tolerance” here: “American Atheists announced Monday on their “No God Blog” a new billboard campaign in their continued effort in “laboring for the civil liberties of atheists,” but in reality just upsetting those who disagree with their theological stance. A press release for the American Atheists’ new holiday season billboard campaign reads:
View original post here:
Atheist Group to Sponsor Anti-Christmas Billboards Featuring Jesus, Santa & Satan
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) addressed Tea Party activists who came to hear the debt commission's findings after the informal hearing was shuttered at the Capitol Thursday. (Image source: YouTube)
Original post:
Senate Rules Committee Blocks Tea Party Debt Commission From Presenting Budget Proposal
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduced as a House bill (similar to the Protect IP Act introduced in the Senate earlier this year) to protect intellectual property from “rouge” websites; it’s especially at foreign websites. The Bill is supported by groups like Hollywood and drug companies, while several others like Google, eBay, AOL and more oppose the bill for fear of censorship and hindered online innovation. Social media sites where users may be sharing pirated material could be shut down if this bill became law. The House Judiciary Committee heard a panel of six stakeholders today — five in favor of the bill and one against. Today, the House Judiciary Committee had its first hearing for the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, which would give law enforcement the ability to remove websites deemed as infringing on copywrite laws and protect against counterfeit goods. Although this sounds like something everyone can agree on, with the way the bill’s current language, opposition worries over broader enforcement and infringement of freedom of speech, even dubbing today “American Censorship Day.” American Censorship, the group sponsoring American Censorship Day, says on its website if the bill were to become law in its current form, sites like Tumblr and Facebook would be shut down. The infographic below details how American Censorship sees the bill affecting online innovation. Depending on what side you’re on, you either see this act as protecting intellectual property and therefore people’s livelihoods, or you see it as Internet censorship hindering the potential for entrepreneurship. Hollywood and pharmaceutical companies support the bill as their movies are illegally downloaded and products copied by online companies to name a few examples. Last month, Ars Technica painted this picture showing opposition’s sentiment for how the bill could be abused : Imagine a world in which any intellectual property holder can, without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom, shut down any website’s online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The credit card processors and the advertising networks would be required to take quick action against the named website; only the filing of a “counter notification” by the website could get service restored. Calling its plan a “market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property,” the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer. The scheme is largely targeted at foreign websites which do not recognize US law, and which therefore will often refuse to comply with takedown requests. But the potential for abuse—even inadvertent abuse—here is astonishing, given the terrifically outsized stick with which content owners can now beat on suspected infringers. CNET reports some of the dialogue from this morning’s hearing : It’s “beyond troubling to hear hyperbolic charges that this bill will open the floodgates to government censorship,” Rep. Mel Watt, a North Carolina Democrat, said during a House Judiciary committee hearing this morning. Claiming that the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, will transform the United States into “a repressive regime belittles the circumstances under which true victims of tyrannical governments actually live,” said Watt, a SOPA sponsor. Rep. Lofgren from California said during this morning’s hearing that it was a mistake for SOPA’s backers to dismiss criticism from people and companies who would be affected by it. “It hasn’t generally been the policy of this committee to dismiss the views of the industries that we’re going to regulate,” Lofgren said. “I understand why cosponsors of this legislation aren’t happy about widespread criticism of this bill,” but attacking the messenger isn’t the answer. Lofgren went as far to say that the hearing was unfairly weighted in favor of the bill, as five of the six person panel testifying before the committee supported the bill. The bill was introduced to the House on October 26 and expounds on the controversial Protect IP Act, which is the Senate version introduced in May of this year. Supporters of the bill include union leaders, Hollywood, retailers and the law enforcement officials, according to the Washington Post. While those against include Google, Facebook, eBay, AOL, Verizon, Mozilla and a slew of Internet freedom groups like Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, Free Software Foundation and Public Knowledge. Here’s an explanation of how Protect IP (and subsequently SOPA) would work from the perspective of Fight for the Future, a group opposing the bill: David Sohn, Senior Policy Counsel of Center for Democracy and Technology, said in a press release today that the bill would “subject online innovators to a new era of uncertainty and risk.” “Fighting large-scale infringement is an important goal,” Sohn said. “But SOPA would do far too much collateral damage to innovation, online expression, and privacy. Congress needs to listen to the full range of stakeholders and seriously rethink how it should address the problem of online infringement.” Several groups opposed to the bill took out ads in major news papers and even censored themselves with HTML code that put a black bar over their website’s home page name and when clicked information about the bill popped up.
This is an example of what one of the self-censored website's looked like. Several websites did this to make a point against the bill.
Continued here:
Would The House Online Anti-Piracy Bill Lead to Internet Censorship?
