Saturday, March 23, 2013

Baby Killers Celebrate ‘National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day’

March 23, 2013

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

~ Ronald Reagan

Excerpted from THE BLAZE:

Abortion is, no doubt, one of the most contentious issues in the sociopolitical spectrum. So, considering that Planned Parenthood and other women’s organizations promoted the “National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day” (NAPAD) earlier this month, it’s no surprise that pro-life advocates have subsequently been up in arms.

Believe it or not, the commemorative “holiday” has been around for quite some time. It was launched in 1996 in an effort to praise the work of abortionists and their associated clinics.

According to a description published by Amplify, a youth organization that tackles reproductive issues, the NAPAD was created to honor these individuals and institutions amid alleged harassment and threats that they purportedly face from the pro-life cohort.

“Unfortunately, many abortion providers continue to face significant risks, including harassment, stalking, threats to family members, and even violence,” the group’s web site explains. “Despite these risks, they continue to stand with us and provide care.”

Keep Reading.

Originally posted on March 18, 2013 at

Broken Promises of ObamaCare

Tim Phillips

(Townhall) Mar. 22, 2013 - Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of President Obama’s most significant legislative 'accomplishment': ObamaCare -- the largest expansion of the welfare state in five decades. Tellingly, the President made sure it did not go into effect until after his re-election campaign concluded. Thus, Americans will not feel the full impact of this disastrous legislation until this coming January.

Despite a long, lavishly funded campaign to sell the supposed benefits of the 2,400 page behemoth, polls show ObamaCare is still as deeply unpopular now with the American people than when it passed in the spring of 2010. A recent Kaiser Family Poll shows that opposition to the law remains above 40%.

On this inauspicious anniversary of ObamaCare we should pause and remember the promises made by the President during his campaign to pass this legislation. Time and again President Obama told Americans that, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.” Yet the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of workers who get health care plans from their employers will drop by millions. The plans that most Americans say they’re satisfied with and would like to keep will cease to exist as insurers are forced to comply with new regulations. Already, employer-provided plans are disappearing as small businesses trim payrolls to stay below the 50 person threshold after which the law mandates comprehensive coverage be provided for all workers. The devastating unintended consequence of ObamaCare is more companies dropping health care benefits altogether.

President Obama guaranteed that ObamaCare would “lower premiums by $2,500 per family per year,” but the reverse occurring. In fact, health care premiums on average are going up for most Americans. The National Health Expenditure Projection estimates premiums climbed by 8% in 2012 alone, increases fueled largely by providers attempting to comply with ObamaCare’s endless array of mandates.

President Obama promised the law would not “raise the deficit by a dime” thanks to $500 billion in new taxes and a bit of budget magic. When passed, the law raised taxes starting in 2013 but didn’t start the spending until 2014 underestimating the full budgetary impact. However, according to CBO estimates, the law is projected to cost at best $1.4 trillion as it is fully implemented over the next ten years. Even using the Senate Democrat budget numbers it becomes clear ObamaCare will be a major driver of national debt. In fact, the Government Accountability Office announced in February that ObamaCare will add $6.2 trillion to the long-term federal deficit. And, when in the course of American history has a Washington, D.C. entitlement program ever come in on budget?

Further, the Department of Health and Human Services, which has the unenviable task of implementing this behemoth, was forced to abandon the CLASS Act, which supposed to provide a significant amount of the promised deficit reduction. The intent of the CLASS Act was to allow working adults to buy insurance against potential future nursing home bills, and by collecting five years of premiums before paying anything out, the program allowed the administration to claim $80 billion in savings. But the likelihood that the program would collapse as mostly older people opted-in forced HHS to abandon the idea—and the supposed savings along with it

Remember the President’s promise that ObamaCare would protect Medicare? Not true. ObamaCare actually takes money from Medicare and Medicare Advantage to fund many of its new programs. According to the CMS Actuary to the Medicare Board of Trustees, ObamaCare didn’t even attempt to resolve $37 trillion in unfunded obligations and instead took nearly $716 billion out of the program. Instead of protecting Medicare and reforming the system, ObamaCare forces the program closer to insolvency, which hurts seniors and Americans who are planning to retire—that is, every single American who may need to rely on the program for their medical needs.

These are just a few of the most egregious broken promises of ObamaCare; there are many more. So tomorrow as you hear the jubilant left-wing media personalities talk about the benefits of ObamaCare, just remember that this “legislative accomplishment” is little more than a bureaucratic boondoggle that raises health care costs, hurts seniors and raises taxes on everyone while eliminating jobs. Happy 3rd Anniversary indeed!

Senate approves Democratic budget after marathon 'vote-a-rama'


WASHINGTON – An exhausted Senate approved its first budget in four years early Saturday, calling for almost $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade while sheltering safety net programs targeted by House Republicans.

While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn't resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.

The nonbinding but politically symbolic measure caters to party stalwarts on the liberal edge of the spectrum just as the House GOP measure is crafted to appeal to more recent tea party arrivals.

Late Friday afternoon, the Senate then began a marathon session of votes on dozens of amendments to the 2014 budget proposal. Many of the proposals were offered in hopes of inflicting political damage on Democratic senators up for re-election in GOP-leaning states like Alaska and Louisiana.

The two main budget proposals produced by Senate Democrats and House Republicans are miles apart. The Senate plan does not attempt to balance the budget at all, though it does claim to reduce the deficit by imposing nearly $1 trillion in tax increases on top of more than $600 billion in higher taxes on top earners enacted in January. It also includes $875 billion in spending cuts, generated by modest cuts to federal health care programs, domestic agencies and the Pentagon and reduced government borrowing costs.

The House plan -- by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party's vice presidential candidate last year -- claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by imposing major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.

"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide."

Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties' profoundly conflicting views.

"I believe we're in denial about the financial condition of our country," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Budget panel, said of Democratic efforts to boost spending on some programs. "Trust me, we've got to have some spending reductions."

Though the shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path to the two parties finding compromise -- which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.

Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.

By sometime this summer, the government's borrowing limit will have to be extended again -- or a default will be at risk -- and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won't happen.

Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won't consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.

Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.

In a long day that began Friday morning, senators plodded through scores of amendments -- all of them non-binding but some delivering potent political messages.

They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.

They also approved amendments voicing support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama's health care overhaul, and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by non-profits.

In a rebuke to one of the Senate's most conservative members, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut even deeper than the House GOP budget and eliminate deficits in just five years.

The Democratic budget envisions $975 billion in unspecified new taxes over the coming 10 years. There would be an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.

This year's projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again.

Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:

Transphobia and the death of Lucy Meadows

by Pink Prosecco

Above: Lucy Meadows before undergoing transition
This morning I discovered that the PCC had determined that Julie Burchill’s disgusting transphobic rant in the Observer did not breach their code of practice. Now I have just read about the death of Lucy Meadows, a transsexual woman who was the subject of a hostile article by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail. (This is no longer available on the Mail’s website). He sneered:

“Mr Upton/Miss Meadows may well be comfortable with his/her decision to seek a sex-change and return to work as if nothing has happened. The school might be extremely proud of its ‘commitment to equality and diversity’.

“But has anyone stopped for a moment to think of the devastating effect all this is having on those who really matter? Children as young as seven aren’t equipped to compute this kind of information.

“Pre-pubescent boys and girls haven’t even had the chance to come to terms with the changes in their own bodies.

“Why should they be forced to deal with the news that a male teacher they have always known as Mr Upton will henceforth be a woman called Miss Meadows? Anyway, why not Miss Upton?”

The precise circumstances surrounding Lucy Meadows’ death are still not certain. However it is clear that many people, including those whose views are otherwise liberal, have a higher tolerance threshold for transphobia than for just about any other kind of bigotry.

To be fair, the PCC, in giving Burchill’s article a clean bill of health, are only following their own guidelines, according to Pink News:

“The PCC’s Editors’ Code of Practice states in a clause on discrimination that the press ‘must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.’

“However, in its ruling of the Burchill article, the PCC acknowledged that it had caused offence but declared the decision to publish was not in breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice…

“It said: ‘the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The language used in the article did not refer to any identifiable individual, but to transgender people generally. While the commission acknowledged the depth of the complainants’ concerns about the terminology used, in the absence of reference to a particular individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.’”

In theory this would seem to imply that it would be ok to propagate ideas straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – as long as no individuals were named. Of course in practice, despite concerns about (for example) Islamophobia, even the tabloids usually avoid the crudest expressions of bigotry, despite their selective, and often factually incorrect, reporting. This makes the publication of Julie Burchill’s disgusting article by the liberal Observer all the more noteworthy. Here’s a reminder:

“She, the other JB and I are part of the tiny minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that’s a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as ‘Cis’ – sounds like syph, cyst, cistern; all nasty stuff – they’re lucky I’m not calling them shemales. Or shims.) We know that everything we have, we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs…

“To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don’t know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.”

Finally, as Lizzie c notes on Twitter:

“just a thought: it’s probably harder to explain to your child why their teacher is dead than why they are now a woman. #lucymeadows


UPDATE: Cyprus Protesters and Bank Employees Clash With Police [VIDEO]


Local news in Cyprus is reporting an escalation in the protests that have begun in the wake of attempts by EU chiefs to confiscate the savings of depositors. The news of possible bank closures has enraged the public. It appears that in order to keep things under control, the Central Bank is discussing a possible bank merger rather than a full shut down.

The Central Bank of Cyprus today intervened to quash frantic reports that Cyprus Popular Bank is to be closed down.

The reports sent hundreds of Cyprus Popular Bank employees and holders of the bank’s bonds out into the streets. Police deployed a strong force outside the Bank’s headquarters in the capital Nicosia to prevent them smashing into the building. (Source)

Here is a video showing police in riot gear on the scene:



Surprise ~> Why the Obamas' REALLY lost their law licenses...


Because I live in Chicago, one of the questions I get asked a lot via email or comments on this site is if I know why the Obamas both lost their licenses to practice law in Illinois (not that a lack of license can really stop a Democrat from practicing law…just ask Elizabeth Warren about that). I think I know why they lost their licenses, but the answer may surprise (or disappoint) you.

According to people I know who worked with Michelle Obama when she was employed by the City of Chicago, Michelle hated being a lawyer. The work was too hard and she was not very good at it. The reason Michelle went to work for the City is because she was hired via a recommendation from Jesse Jackson which then qualified her as a “Jesse Hire”; this is slang here in Chicago for an “untouchable hire”, meaning this is someone on the City payroll who can never be fired or even disciplined in any way because their employment was a political favor to someone. In Michelle’s case, that someone was Jesse Jackson and Michelle was thus one of the many black people working for the City at Jackson’s insistence who were not expected to actually do their jobs and instead could read newspapers, shop in catalogs, play Minesweeper on their computers, or just spin aimlessly around in their swivel chairs all day. Michelle reportedly took two or even three lunch breaks a day, would disappear for hours, went on constant “personal appointments” and treated her work space at the City like it was an airport lounge: a place to go for a while to kill time where she could snack, peruse magazines, gossip, and talk loudly on the phone with girlfriends and laugh and laugh and laugh.

No one could say boo to her and a LOT of resentment developed, of course, but this is how Chicago operates and even Mayor Daley (who ruled the city as a king) was terrified of angering Jesse Jackson because Jesse’s big threat was always to find some excuse to dispatch the Rainbow Push Coalition to the streets to rant, rave, scream, and protest that Daley was…wait for it…bet you can’t guess…RACIST!

So, “Jesse Hires” were a form of extortion of the City that required people Jesse personally recommended for jobs be essentially given paid positions to read newspapers and talk about babies for as long as they wanted. It’s not just Jesse who gets these “hires’ though. A lot of Aldermen have them, too…and as long as the Aldermen are in power and have votes the Mayor needs for certain things, then friends and family of the Aldermen get to work for the City in positions similar to the one that Michelle Obama held after she left Sidley Austin. This is all pretty common knowledge in Chicago. Before I was identified as a political writer and my cover was blown (I used to write this site anonymously until Fran Eaton of the Illinois Review outed me for personal reasons because she wanted to help an ex-boyfriend get back at me), I used to work freelance gigs for the City doing event planning or coordinating special projects…which was ridiculously lucrative and a lot of fun. I will never, ever be able to land one of those freelancing assignments again because I’m clearly no fan of Rahm Emanuel but back in the Daley days when I was doing these gigs I saw a lot of these “untouchable hires” just taking up space in the various offices I’d visit in my day. These people were always kept in the very back, in cubicles, and some of them would even sleep during the day. Once, I saw a group of them playing cards…in a work area, not a break room. Some of these positions require driving around town but it’s not really with any particular goal in mind. They might be listed as delivery people, but they don’t deliver much and spend about 7 hours just cruising around, stopping for snacks, maybe going to a movie. Whatever they want.

Michelle Obama “worked” in this capacity for a few years, until Valerie Jarrett (whom she became friends with during her stint as a “Jesse Hire”) took her with her when she went over to the University of Chicago Medical Center. I believe at that time that Barack Obama was already a state senator and it was clear he was being pushed for bigger things…so it was natural for the Medical Center to want the senator’s wife on the payroll so that they could funnel money to him through her as rewards for steering legislation towards passage that would benefit University of Chicago. This is how Chicago works, folks. Michelle didn’t do any more work at the Medical Center than she did for the City and her job duties involved trying to keep black people from going to the emergency room at the hospital for treatment without insurance and instead go to these sub-par “medical clinics” that the Medical Center wanted them steered towards instead. At one point, Michelle received a ridiculously large raise right around the time that the University of Chicago received a massive funding infusion for the Medical Center from Springfield, where Barack Obama was on his way to becoming a United States Senator. Surely this was just a coincidence and was not a way for University of Chicago to buy favor from the next US Senator representing Illinois by dramatically increasing his wife’s pay to over $300,000/year for doing relatively nothing all day.


Hat tip:  Baracuda Brigade

Friday, March 22, 2013

US Begins Regulating BitCoin, Will Apply "Money Laundering" Rules To Virtual Transactions

by Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge:

Last November, in an act of sheer monetary desperation, the ECB issued an exhaustive, and quite ridiculous, pamphlet titled "Virtual Currency Schemes" in which it mocked and warned about the "ponziness" of such electronic currencies as BitCoin. Why a central bank would stoop so "low" to even acknowledge what no "self-respecting" (sic) PhD-clad economist would even discuss, drunk and slurring, at cocktail parties, remains a mystery to this day. However, that it did so over fears the official artificial currency of the insolvent continent, the EUR, may be becoming even more "ponzi" than the BitCoins the ECB was warning about, was clear to everyone involved who saw right through the cheap propaganda attempt. Feel free to ask any Cypriot if they would now rather have their money in locked up Euros, or in "ponzi" yet freely transferable, unregulated BitCoins.

For the answer, we present the chart showing the price of BitCoin in EUR terms since the issuance of the ECB's paper:

Therein, sadly, lies the rub.

As central banks have been able to manipulate the price of precious metals for decades, using a countless plethora of blatant and not so blatant trading techniques, whether involving "banging the close", abusing the London AM fix, rehypothecating and leasing out claims on gold to short and re-short the underlying, creating paper gold exposure out of thin air with which to suppress deliverable prices, or simply engaging in any other heretofore unknown illegal activity, the parabolic surge in gold and silver has, at least for the time being - and especially since the infamous, and demoralizing May 1, 2011 silver smackdown - lost its mojo.

But while precious metals have been subject to price manipulation by the legacy establishment, even if ultimately the actual physical currency equivalent asset, its "value" naively expressed in some paper currency, may be in the possession of the beholder, to date no price suppression or regulation schemes of virtual currencies existed.

It was thus only a matter of time before the same establishment was forced to make sure that money leaving the traditional M0/M1/M2/M3 would not go into alternative electronic currency venues, but would instead be used to accelerate the velocity of the money used by the legacy, and quite terminal, monetary system.

After all, what if not pushing savers to spend, spend, spend and thus boost the money in circulation, was the fundamental purpose of the recent collapse in faith in savings held with European banks?

So, as we had long expected, the time when the global Keynesian status quo refocused its attention from paper gold and silver prices, to such "virtual" currencies as BitCoin has finally arrived.

The WSJ reports that, "the U.S. is applying money-laundering rules to "virtual currencies," amid growing concern that new forms of cash bought on the Internet are being used to fund illicit activities. The move means that firms that issue or exchange the increasingly popular online cash will now be regulated in a similar manner as traditional money-order providers such as Western Union Co. They would have new bookkeeping requirements and mandatory reporting for transactions of more than $10,000. Moreover, firms that receive legal tender in exchange for online currencies or anyone conducting a transaction on someone else's behalf would be subject to new scrutiny, said proponents of Internet currencies.

And just like that, there goes a major part of the allure of all those virtual currencies such as BitCoin that consumers had turned to, and away from such rapidly devaluing units of exchange as the dollar and euro. Because if there was one medium of exchange that was untouched, unregulated, and unmediated by the US government and other authoritarian, despotic regimes around the insolvent "developed world", it was precisely transactions involving BitCoin.

That is no longer the case, as the bloodhound of the Federal Reserve has now turned its attention toward BitCoin, and will not stop until it crashes both its value to end-users, and its utility, in yet another attempt to force the USD, and other fiat, upon global consumers as the only forms of allowed legal tender.

More from the WSJ:

The rising popularity of virtual currencies, while no more than a drop in the bucket of global liquidity, is being fueled by Internet merchants, as well as users' concerns about privacy, jitters about traditional currencies in Europe and the age-old need to move money for illicit purposes.

The arm of the Treasury Department that fights money laundering said Monday that the standard federal banking rules aimed at suspicious dollar transfers also apply to firms that issue or exchange money that isn't linked to any government and exists only online.

Naturally, the actual object of US monetary persecution, is BitCoin:

"We are beyond the stage where this was just funny money and a fun online thing. This is used as a currency," said Nicolas Christin, associate director of Carnegie Mellon University's Information Networking Institute.

Bitcoins can be used in a host of legitimate transactions—for example, website Reddit allows users to upgrade services using bitcoins and blog service's store accepts them as a form of payment. also lets bitcoin savers pay for deliveries through Domino's and other pizzerias.
The problem with virtual currencies is that defining what is permitted in a narrow regulatory sense, is impossible, which is why any definition will be as broad as possible: after all what better way to spook users than to make virtually any transaction borderline illegal:

Creating clear-cut rules for virtual currencies is difficult. A FinCen official said that anti-money-laundering rules would apply depending on the "factors and circumstances" of each business. The rules don't apply to individuals who simply use virtual currencies to purchase real or virtual goods.

The new guidance "clarifies definitions and expectations to ensure that businesses…are aware of their regulatory responsibilities," said Jennifer Shasky Calvery, FinCen director.

The FBI report last year said Bitcoin attracts cybercriminals who want to move or steal funds. "Bitcoin might also logically attract money launderers and other criminals who avoid traditional financial systems by using the Internet to conduct global monetary transfers," the report said. An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment when asked about the agency's concerns regarding virtual currencies.

We were not the only ones to expect imminent intervention from Big Brother:

Some firms say they anticipated the rules. Charlie Sherm, chief executive of bitcoin payment processor BitInstant, said his company is already compliant.

Mr. Christin of Carnegie Mellon said that he believes Bitcoin's dominant use right now is speculation.

"When you have a commodity or currency whose value has grown as rapidly as Bitcoin it makes sense to hold on to it as a speculative instrument," he said. It also is commonly used for online black markets or gambling sites. "Whether used for money laundering…there is no smoking gun."

As to the question of timing - why now - the answer is simple. Europe. After all, it was only yesterday that we wrote that "In Spain, The Bitcoin Run Has Started." It is self-explanatory that if such an exodus away from legacy currencies and into BitCoin was left unchecked, more and more people would follow suit, which is why it had to be intercepted as early as possible.

The jump in the bitcoin exchange rate this week also coincides with concerns euros could be taken from retail bank accounts in Cyprus to fund a bailout. Internet blogs say speculators are looking toward currency alternatives.

Well, if internet blogs say... Of course, internet blogs also say that if and when the fascination with virtual currencies fizzles, all those who are disgusted with the abuse of fiat will not cease from seeking USD, EUR, JPY, GBP and CHF alternatives, but will merely go back to the safety of having hard assets as a currency, namely silver and gold, instead of electronic ones and zeroes, which the US government, in all its Orwellian benevolence may one day, for lack of a better word, hack right out of existence.

On the other hand, the regime's desperation is reaching such a level that a Executive Order 6102-type confiscation of all hard asset currencies may not be far behind.

Because forewarned, is forearmed.

Florida University Student Suspended After Refusing to Stomp on Jesus


A student at Florida Atlantic University has charged that his professor in intercultural communications class told the whole class to write the name JESUS in bold letters on a piece of paper, then drop the papers and stomp all over them.

The alleged incident happened three weeks ago on the Davie, Florida campus of FAU, according to WPEC-TV.

Junior Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, is the student making the charge.

“Anytime you stomp on something it shows that you believe that something has no value,” he told the South Florida CBS affiliate. “So if you were to stomp on the word Jesus, it says that the word has no value.”

Some students stomped; others, including Rotela, didn’t. He said he told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment offended his religious convictions.

Two days later, the junior alleges, he went to an FAU school official to express his unease with the assignment.

The result? Rotela has been suspended from the class.

An FAU official defended the decision, telling WPEC that the Jesus-stomping was part of a classroom exercise from a textbook: “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition.”

Read more at The Daily Caller


Wasserman Schultz: My Aides Can't Afford Good Meals


by Mike Flynn
21 Mar 2013
Breitbart News

On Tuesday, FL Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her colleague VA Rep. Jim Moran openly whined about the impacts of spending cuts on their personal office budgets. Moran fretted that, with the looming sequester cuts, he may have to cut one staffer from his office. Wasserman Schultz upped his ante, however. She, almost literally, suggested that her staff were on the brink of starvation, due to the cuts.
Speaking at a hearing of the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, Wasserman Schultz worried that prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being "priced out" of a good meal.

At the carry-out cafe in the Cannon Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz has her office, you can get an 8oz bowl of Ham and Bean soup for $2. You can buy gourmet sandwiches and wraps for around $5. Both of these are cheaper than I can get at delis down the street from my house.

Her aides could walk across the street to the Longworth Building, which has a large sit-down cafeteria. Today, it is featuring a roasted stuffed Chicken, with asparagus and mashed potatoes, for around $7. Or, one could opt for a heaping 12oz bowl of Chicken Chili for $3.

There is also the tried and true method enjoyed by millions of workers around the country: a brown-bag lunch.

Wasserman Schultz's top aide earns around $160k a year. She pays two additional aides around $120k a year. She has five additional aides who earn between $60-100k a year.

Whenever anyone proposes cuts in federal spending, Democrats like Wasserman Schultz warn that the cuts will endanger seniors and children. I used to think the argument was just a cynical political play for votes. After Tuesday's hearing, however, I'm afraid Wasserman Schultz may actually believe it.

If, in her mind, modest cuts to Members' personal offices results in well-paid aides struggling to pay for their lunch, then we will have a harder time cutting the budget than we realize.

Louisiana Trial Court Strikes Down Louisiana Felon-in-Possession Ban, as Violating Newly Strengthen Louisiana Right to Bear Arms Provision


Eugene Volokh • March 21, 2013 7:50 pm

In November 2012, Louisiana voters strengthened the Louisiana Constitution’s right to bear arms provision, to read

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Today, Louisiana Judge Darryl A. Derbigny, in State v. Draughter (La. Crim. Dist. Ct. Mar. 21, 2012), held that the Louisiana ban on felon possession of guns violates this provision. The analysis was brief:

Under the strict scrutiny standard, government action is not presumed to be constitutional, and will not be upheld by [a] Court unelss shown to be necessarily related to a compelling state interest.... After applying the strict scrutiny standard to [the statute], this Court concludes that the statute is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest. [The statute] applies without discretion to nearly every felony crime enumerated in the Louisiana Criminal Code. As such, the statute, ‘as-is’, is unconstitutional in its entirety.

I assume the government will appeal, and Louisiana appellate courts will consider the issue. Note that the federal ban on possession of guns by felons remains in effect — federal law is governed only by the Second Amendment and not by state constitutional provisions, and D.C. v. Heller stated that felon in possession bans generally don’t violate the Second Amendment. Federal prosecutors could thus prosecute felons possessing guns in Louisiana even if the decision as to the Louisiana law is affirmed.

Terrorist Label Worries Will Not Sustain Activist Suit


(CN) - Five animal rights activists who say they could be prosecuted as terrorists under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act failed to show chilled speech, a federal judge ruled.
For a total of more than 80 years, Sarahjane Blum, Ryan Shapiro, Lana Lehr, Lauren Gazzola and Iver Robert Johnson III have fought to improve conditions for rabbits, ducks and geese, and dolphins, and other cetaceans. They have done so with public protests, letter-writing campaigns, lawful picketing and nonviolent acts of civil disobedience.
Blum and Shapiro co-founded, a grassroots coalition whose nationwide investigation culminated in the documentary, "Delicacy of Despair: Behind the Closed Doors of the Foie Gras Industry;" the rescue and rehabilitation of force-fed farm animals, and the activists' 2004 arrest for trespassing.
That same year, Gazzola was arrested and convicted under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 for working with the U.S. branch of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. She received a 52-month prison sentence, and is currently on probation.
Lehr, who has never engaged in civil disobedience or been arrested, participated in anti-fur protests and founded the public charity RabbitWise.
They allegedly grew concerned in 2006 when Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), to criminalize violence against animal enterprises and their associates, including damage to "personal property."
Blum and the others claimed to have backed off from activism for fear of prosecution and sentencing as terrorists.
They challenged the constitutionality of AETA, arguing that the "overly broad" and "impermissibly vague" act discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder moved to dismiss the federal complaint in Boston for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro agreed that the activists lack Article III standing.
"Plaintiffs have not alleged an intention to engage in any activity prohibited by the AETA," Tauro wrote. "The conduct they seek to participate in - lawful and peaceful advocacy - is very different: documenting factory conditions with permission, organizing lawful public protests and letter-writing campaigns, speaking at public events, and disseminating literature and other educational materials. None of plaintiffs' proposed activities fall within the statutory purview of intentionally damaging or causing loss of real or personal property or intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death or serious injury."
The court rejected the activists' argument that "personal property" includes loss of profits.
"The court must read the term "personal property" in light of the words around it, specifically 'animals or records' and 'real property,'" Tauro wrote. "In this context, personal property cannot reasonably be read to include an intangible such as lost profits."
Also lacking were claims of an "objectively reasonable chill" to the rights of activists, the 18-page ruling states.
"The court does not doubt plaintiffs' deeply held commitment to animal welfare or the sincerity of their personal fear of prosecution under the AETA," Tauro wrote. "Nevertheless, plaintiffs have not alleged an intention to engage in any activity 'that could reasonably be construed' to fall within the statute." Read the Document HERE


Obamacare May Cost Small Business 'Whiners' 65% of Annual Profits

by John Sexton
Breitbart News

March 20, 2013 - Today the NY Times has a case study on the cost of Obamacare to one small business. The business in question is Baked in the Sun, a California baker with 95 employees. 

Baked in the Sun does about $8 million in annual revenue, however margins for bakers are tight so their annual profit is only about $200,000. Because the business has over 50 employees, they will be required to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a fine for not doing so.

The owners estimate that the cost of compliance would be $108,000 per year plus $10,000 in overhead to manage the plan. The cost of paying the fine for not offering insurance would be $130,000. So they have a choice between losing 64% or 65% of their annual profits.

The article goes on to note that not all employees will take the insurance being offered. Some will already have it through another individual--a spouse or parent. So the actual cost of offering a plan will likely be less than the potential cost. Of course, no one knows what the plans themselves will cost yet so it's all a guess at this point.

In any case, just a week ago Five Guys burgers announced the cost of Obamacare compliance was going to force them to raise prices. Matt Yglesias, who writes for Slate, was quick to call them "whiners."

Obamacare is going to reduce his profits by about one-eighth and he (and any investors in his business) will eat the loss. With corporate profits as a share of the economy at an all-time high, nobody's going to cry for him either.

In other words, eat the 1/8 loss of profits and shut up about it. But unlike Five Guys, Baked in the Sun facing a loss of up to 2/3 of their annual profits, meaning they will almost certainly be forced to raise prices:

“It’s ironic that our success meant we could grow,” Ms. Shein said, “and now we will be competing against smaller companies, with 50 employees or fewer, who will be able to charge less per item because they don’t have the financial burden of health insurance.” Prices are currently similar among local competitors, Ms. Shein said, and she believes the increase in her prices could affect her sales, possibly significantly.

I pointed out on Twitter that it was weird Yglesias hadn't said anything about Baked in the Sun and his response was that he'd already said all he had to say. The cost of compliance and the potential loss of revenue from smaller competitors--it's all irrelevant. Just stop whining, he explained.

Al Sharpton Broad: Tawana Brawley fighting garnishment


NEW YORK (UPI) -- A disbarred lawyer for a black New York teen who falsely accused six white men of rape in 1987, says her wages shouldn't be garnished to pay a defamation award.

Tawana Brawley's former lawyer, Alton Maddox, said in a letter to state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that Steven Pagones, a former prosecutor who won a defamation suit in 1997 after Brawley falsely claimed he was one of the men who attacked her in 1987, should not get money from garnishing Brawley's wages from her nursing job, the New York Post reported Sunday.

"New York and Virginia have conspired to deprive her of property without due process of law," Maddox's letter, which he posted on his Web site, reads. Brawley, who now goes by the name Tawana Vacenia Thompson Gutierrez, works at a licensed nurse at a nursing home in Virginia.

"The things he's saying on his Web site are outright lies. It's ludicrous," said Pagones.

Pagones got a court order in January to collect on his defamation award.

Brawley was ordered in 1997 to pay $190,000 at 9 percent interest annually. She hadn't paid any of it before the garnishment order, and her bill currently amounts to $431,492, the Post reported.

Brawley's wages from her employment as a licensed nurse in a nursing home are being garnished at $150 per week, but Pagones still has not gotten any of it as the money is being held in escrow, giving Brawley an opportunity to file an appeal, the Post reported.

Wiki info HERE

Obama Mideast Policy Alienates Israelis And Arabs


Middle East: Both Israeli Jews and Arabs are furious at President Obama's disgracefully overdue trip to Israel. Wooing Islamists while giving our loyal ally in Jerusalem the cold shoulder is a disastrous foreign policy.

Only 10% of Israelis view the president of the United States favorably, according to a March 15 poll conducted by Maagar Mohot Institute, while just 33% believe he has a favorable attitude toward the Jewish state.

Such lack of support has to be unprecedented. But as Obama visits, Israel's enemies are letting it be known they think even less of him. Palestinians were burning effigies of Obama on Monday in demonstrations near Manger Square in Bethlehem, with no interference from Palestinian Authority law enforcement.

Major protests against Obama's visit in other Palestinian cities are expected this week.

One demonstrator gave a familiar Arab refrain to the Jerusalem Post:

"We want to tell America that we hate you."

Another complained that "Obama is coming to help the Israelis."

Symbolism might have a limited relationship to geopolitical realities, but it is beyond ironic that the presidential limousine broke down during a Mideast trip because it was pumped with the wrong fuel.

And the magnolia tree Obama and Israeli president Shimon Peres planted together on Wednesday was immediately dug up; the Agriculture Ministry may spend months checking it for disease. One "Arab Spring" planted by Obama is apparently enough for the Israelis.

Who can blame them? This is an administration that, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, just released a map of "Israel" in which Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights are missing. And the president's official trip schedule lists stops in "Tel Aviv, Israel" but Israel's capital is simply "Jerusalem."

It's an administration whose Justice Department on Tuesday told a federal appeals court that an American boy born in Jerusalem cannot list Israel as his birthplace on his U.S. passport, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is reporting.

As he was calling NBC News' Chuck Todd "incorrigible" at a press conference, Obama explained his Mideast failures with the excuse that "this is a really hard problem ... a hard slog," and "some of it is just because it is hard."

It makes it a lot harder when a president goes to an audience of Islamists in Cairo, as Obama did in his first year as president, and tells them that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that ... culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust," rather than the ancient claims based on the Old Testament, as the Zionist movement argued.

In that same speech, Obama declared that "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," arguing that "this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace."

Toward the end of his first term, Obama added insult when he declared that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders.

The predictable result of all this "smart" Obama diplomacy? The Muslim Mideast no longer respects us, and our ally Israel rightfully feels betrayed.


Recession Buster: U.S. companies seek final approval to start slaughtering horses for food


I'm thinkin' Arby's!!!
By Barnini Chakraborty
Fox News

About eight miles outside of Roswell, N.M., a shuttered cattle farm is getting ready to reopen its doors. Only this time, the Valley Meat Co. won’t be killing cows. It hopes to be the first U.S. farm to start slaughtering horses for human consumption.

Not far behind could be plants in Missouri, Iowa and Oklahoma.

Across the country, companies are applying for permits with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to kill horses for food – a practice Congress ended in 2007. The measure to stop the slaughters, though, lapsed in 2011 and now companies are clamoring to get back into the game.

“We’re getting ready,” Valley Meat Co. attorney A. Blair Dunn, told

But it hasn’t been an easy road, with public opposition still strong to the idea of horse-slaughter resuming in the U.S., though the current plans would be geared toward exporting the meat to other countries.

Dunn says the farm has had multiple break-ins recently, and earlier this week a bomb threat was called in. There have been death threats, too.

“I am surprised it’s risen to the level it has,” he said.

For its part, the federal government is sending out mixed messages about the future of these projects. The USDA wants the horse-killing ban reinstated, but in the absence of that would be compelled to help the factories become operational.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters Tuesday, “We’re very close to getting the work done that’s needed to be done to allow them to operate.”

But an official at the USDA indicated Wednesday that these steps could take significantly more time.

“The Food Safety and Inspection Service is currently reviewing (three) applications,” the official said. “However, given that the agency last conducted a horse inspection six years ago, FSIS has determined that despite the congressional decision to lift the ban, the agency will require a significant amount of time to update its testing and inspection processes and methods before it is fully able to develop a future inspection regimen.”

The official, pressed for clarification given Vilsack's statement the day before, then said that once the companies complete "necessary technical requirements" and the USDA agency finishes inspector training, "the department will legally have no choice but to go forward with inspections."

Vilsack’s department is rewriting the rules for horse slaughter because they need to add in findings from a 2007 food safety and animal science report.

The idea of killing horses for food has triggered strong reaction among people on both sides of the issue. Several animal rights organizations have linked legalizing the practice to horrific abuses and animal cruelty that they claim could lead to unsafe meat. Proponents say the animal is consumed in countries all over the world and could be extremely profitable to American companies interested in the industry.

Once operational, Valley Meat expects to process 100 horses a day with a net gain of about $200-$250 per horse, Dunn says.

Since the slaughters stopped in 2007, horses that were being processed on U.S. farms were sent to Mexico or Canada.

Dunn says the company would create 100 jobs in a city of 48,546, according to the latest population estimates. There were eight government job openings on Roswell’s official web site Wednesday morning.

A bipartisan group of federal lawmakers including Sens. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., has introduced legislation that would reinstate the ban on killing horses for food. Their legislation would also prohibit U.S. companies, like Valley Meat, from slaughtering animals in the U.S. and then shipping them overseas for consumption.

But it may be too little too late.

States are taking matters into their own hands and the push to pass proposals to allow horses to be slaughtered for human consumption is well under way.

On Monday, an Oklahoma Senate committee unanimously approved a bill that would end that state’s five-decade ban on the practice. The Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Committee voted 9-0 in favor of the bill that would allow the export of horse meat for sale to other countries. Killing horses for consumption in the U.S. would still be illegal under the bill.

Rep. Skye McNeil sponsored a similar bill on the House side and says the public needs to abandon its belief that the government is going after a beloved American pet.

“These horses have a value as a life animal,” McNeil, the bill’s sponsor told “They are very well cared for. There’s no reason they shouldn’t have a value after their usefulness is over.”

McNeil says there are more than 150,000 horses being shipped across the border for business.

“Farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma are facing hardships because of the large horse population we have in the state and the difficulty they have in managing that population, especially when horses become old,” she said in a statement to “As a rural lawmaker, I constantly hear about this difficulty and have witnessed firsthand the types of neglect and abuse problems that have come out of large groups of unwanted horses. So far, the bill has received broad, bipartisan support, because everyone in rural communities is aware of the problem.”

McNeil’s explanation doesn’t jibe with Cynthia Armstrong, the Oklahoma State Director of the Humane Society of the United States.

Armstrong says that more than 90 percent of the horses put up for slaughter are healthy. She also says the way horses are killed – the captive bolt method - cause them unnecessary harm and could taint the meat that would be later ingested by humans. Traits in horses, such as a “fight or flight” response, make accurate stunning very difficult, she said.

“As a result, horse often endure repeated blows by the captive bolt and sometimes remain conscious during dismemberment,” she said.

Like Armstrong, several animal rights groups are trying to stop states from reinstating the practice. They argue that horses aren’t raised as food animals and lack the controls and restrictions in place for cattle, swine and other poultry meats. Unlike cows and pigs, there isn’t a system to track horses from birth.

Armstrong also believes that America shouldn’t slaughter horses and says the animal plays a significant part in the culture of the country.

“We’re not killing Mr. Ed and then eating him,” New Mexico attorney Dunn says.

Dunn tells that while he understands the concerns of animal rights groups he does believe there is a safe and profitable way for these plants to prosper in the United States.

Aurora theater shooter Holmes converts to Islam


Someone please pass the pig's blood...

By Jessica Chasmar
The Washington Times

The man who shot up an Aurora, Colo., movie theater during a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” last summer has reportedly converted to Islam and prays up to five times a day.

A prison source say the beard James Holmes sported in court last months represents his new-found faith. The source said Mr. Holmes has turned Muslim as a way of justifying his horrific crimes on July 20 which left 12 people dead and 58 people wounded, the Daily Mail reports.

“He has brainwashed himself into believing he was on his own personal jihad and that his victims were infidels,” the source told the National Enquirer.

Mr. Holmes now prays five times a day, sticks to a strict Muslim diet and spends hours each day studying the Koran, the source told the Enquirer.

But most Muslim inmates are not happy with the convict’s new religion.

“None of them condone forms of terrorism or extremism,” the source added. “And they don’t want their religion to be connected to that awful shooting.”

Mr. Holmes is charged with 166 counts, mostly for murder and attempted murder, the Mail reports. He could be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted. A Colorado judge entered a not guilty plea on his behalf earlier this month

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. 

Thursday, March 21, 2013

And in Other News: Harry Reems, Star of ‘Deep Throat’ Film, Dies at 65


Harry Reems, whose starring role in “Deep Throat” in 1972 made him America’s first bona fide male porn star — and whose life, more than most, embodied the time-honored American narrative of fame, failure and redemption — died on Tuesday in Salt Lake City, Utah. He was 65.

The cause had not been determined, but Mr. Reems had been in declining health for some years, his wife, Jeanne, said.

The arc of Mr. Reems’s life — which took him from Marine to “Deep Throat” to mendicant to successful real estate broker — came to renewed attention in 2005 with the release of “Inside Deep Throat,” a documentary about the film’s legacy for which he was interviewed on camera.

The scheduled release this July of “Lovelace,” a biographical film starring Amanda Seyfried as Linda Lovelace and Adam Brody as Mr. Reems, seems likely to ensure his continued place in public memory.

Mr. Reems, who began his career in the 1960s as a struggling stage actor, had already made dozens of pornographic films when he starred opposite Ms. Lovelace in “Deep Throat.”

But where his previous movies were mostly the obscure, short, grainy, plotless stag films known as loops, “Deep Throat,” which had set design, occasional costumes, dialogue punctuated by borscht-belt humor and an actual plot of sorts, was Cinema.

Mr. Reems played Dr. Young, a physician whose diagnostic brilliance — he locates the rare anatomical quirk that makes Ms. Lovelace’s character vastly prefer oral sex to intercourse — is matched by his capacity for tireless ministration.

“I was always the doctor,” he told New York magazine in 2005, “because I was the one that had an acting background. I would say: ‘You’re having trouble with oral sex? Well, here’s how to do it.’ Cut to a 20-minute oral-sex scene.”

“Deep Throat” quickly became an international sensation: the subject of debates, pro and con, concerning its redeeming social value, and of self-congratulatory cocktail-party chat among the intelligentsia.

It was responsible for turning Mr. Reems, with his immense black mustache and shirts, opened to the navel to reveal an almost preternaturally hirsute chest, into a one-man avatar of the ’70s.

It was also responsible for his conviction on federal conspiracy charges and, he said afterward, his descent into alcoholism, destitution and homelessness before finding faith, a happy marriage and bourgeois respectability.

Mr. Reems was born Herbert Streicher in Brooklyn on Aug. 27, 1947, into a Jewish family. (His nom du cinéma was bestowed by the director of “Deep Throat,” Gerard Damiano.) Young Herbert passed his adolescence, by his own later account, as “a shy kid with a lot of pimples and a big nose.”

After high school he enlisted in the Marine Corps, where he cultivated the strong, sinewy body that would become his calling card. In the late 1960s, after his father died, he obtained a discharge and moved to the East Village.

He acted in Off Off Broadway plays, but, needing money, took work in pornographic films. Among them were “Mondo Porno,” “The Altar of Lust” and “Erecter Sex” Parts 3 and 4.

Mr. Reems’s Schwab’s drugstore moment came after Mr. Damiano hired him to be the lighting director on “Deep Throat.” When the original male lead failed to show up for work, Mr. Reems stepped in.

For the film, which was widely reported to have grossed more than $600 million, Mr. Reems was paid about $250.

However, as he told it, there were other compensations: parties at the Playboy Mansion, hobnobbing with celebrities and fending off (or not) throngs of adoring women.

Then, one day in 1974 Mr. Reems was arrested in New York by federal agents. The next year he and 11 others, many of them organized-crime figures, were tried in federal court in Memphis on charges of conspiracy to transport obscene material across state lines. (“Deep Throat” was widely reported to have been financed by associates of the Colombo crime family.)

It was during the trial, Mr. Reems said, that he began drinking heavily.

After he and his co-defendants were found guilty in 1976 Mr. Reems became a First Amendment cause célèbre, with a string of Hollywood celebrities speaking out on his behalf.

“Today, Harry Reems; tomorrow, Helen Hayes,” Warren Beatty was reported to have declared.

Represented on appeal by Alan M. Dershowitz, Mr. Reems had his conviction set aside by a federal judge in 1977.

Mr. Reems, who made more than 100 films, went on to star in “The Devil in Miss Jones” (1973) and “Memories Within Miss Aggie” (1974), both directed by Mr. Damiano, as well as “Pleasure Cruise” (1974) and “For Your Thighs Only” (1984).

But pornography is a young man’s game, and by the mid-1980s demand for Mr. Reems had abated. By then he was adrift, drinking, by his count, two-and-a-half gallons of vodka a day.

He fetched up in Los Angeles, begging on the streets and sleeping in Dumpsters. He contemplated suicide, he said, but could not summon the nerve.

In 1989 Mr. Reems, then living in Park City, Utah, stopped drinking with the help of a 12-step program. He converted to Christianity, obtained his real estate license and married Jeanne Sterret in 1990.

Besides his wife, Mr. Reems’s survivors include a brother, Robert.

Ms. Lovelace died in 2002, at 53, of injuries sustained in a car accident; Mr. Damiano died, at 80, in 2008.

For the most part Mr. Reems led a life of contented small-town obscurity in Midway, Utah, golfing, attending church and collecting Brooklyn Dodgers memorabilia. He retained the name Harry Reems, he said in interviews, as a proud emblem of an odyssey he did not regret.

There was, Mr. Reems told The Ottawa Citizen in 2005, one lingering affinity between his early career and his later one as the owner of a successful real estate brokerage.

“I’m still selling dirt,” he said.

source: new york times

PETA killed more than 1,600 cats and dogs at its Virginia headquarters last year - almost 90% of the animals handed over to the charity's American shelter

By Katie Davies
UK Daily Mail

Animal rights charity PETA killed almost 90 per cent of dogs and cats placed in the care of the shelter at its Virginia headquarters last year, it has been revealed today.

The charity, well-known for attention grabbing publicity campaigns such as the 'I'd rather go naked' anti-fur campaign, euthanized 1,647 cats and dogs last year and only placed 19 in new homes according to the data submitted to the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services.

PETA told Mail Online that the animals they take in at the center are 'unadoptable', however 89.4 per cent of pets is much higher than their own approximation that half of animals taken to shelters end up being euthanized.

Criticism: PETA, well-known for its hard-hitting adverts such as the one pictured, has come under fire for the number of animals it kills at its shelter in Norfolk, Virginia
Defense: The charity says euthanasia at its Virginia HQ shelter, pictured, is a 'necessary evil' as aside from those suffering they can't find homes for all the cats and dogs handed to them
According to the statistics 1,110 cats and 733 dogs were handed in to the charity in 2012.

22 cats and 108 dogs were transferred to another shelter, two cats and three dogs were reclaimed by their owner while 1,045 cats and 602 were euthanized.

34 cats and 7 dogs were placed under a category entitled 'Miscellaneous'.

The statistics have been promoted by a restaurant advocacy coalition called Center for Consumer Freedom, which has had numerous run-ins with the charity in the past.

They say that since 1998 the shelter has euthanized a total of 29,398 pets.

Justin Wilson, CCF Senior Research Analyst said: 'The animal rights group is talking out of both sides of its mouth – on one side preaching its animal liberation agenda, while on the other signing the death warrant of over 89 percent of pets in its care. It’s beyond hypocritical.'

Well-known campaigns: The charity often uses celebrities for its hard-hitting campaigns. It was accused today of being more interested in 'publicity stunts than keeping animals alive'
Campaigns: Among its many projects PETA encourages vegetarianism and veganism and is against animal testing
'It seems PETA is more dedicated to publicity stunts than to keeping the animals in its own care alive. It’s the height of hypocrisy for PETA to demonstrate for the 'rights' of rats and pigs, while killing tens of thousands of pets. It’s time that the Commonwealth of Virginia finally reclassifies PETA’s pet shelter for what it is – a slaughterhouse.'

A PETA spokeswoman told MailOnline that they had no choice but to euthanize the animals.

'We have a small division that does hands-on work with animals, and most of the animals we take in are society's rejects; aggressive, on death's door, or somehow unadoptable,' she said.

'CCF's goal is to damage PETA by misrepresenting the situation and the number of unwanted and suffering animals PETA euthanizes because of injury, illness, age, aggression, and other problems, because their guardians requested it, or because no good homes exist for them.'

Sex sells: PETA often uses models in their campaigns. They hit out at critics of euthanasia at their cat and dog shelters yesterday saying it received many unadoptable pets
A later statement added: 'PETA refers adoptable animals to the high-traffic open-admission shelters where they have the best chance of being seen and finding a new home.'

In a 2009 blog the charity wrote about their opposition to 'no-kill' animal shelters saying they often get filled and just have to turn animals away.

It said in some cases euthanasia is a necessary evil and PETA is willing to do 'society's dirty work'.

'As long as animals are still purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis,' it said.

In response to the post, supporters of the charity were torn on the issue but many said a charity in its position on issues such as medical testing, the fur trade and as advocates for veganism should never allow the killing of healthy animals over a lack of suitable home.

'In my book, the only time it's acceptable to kill animals is the same as the only time it's acceptable to kill people: when their illness is painful and terminal.'

'Anything else is a speciesist double standard. As soon as I hear of a campaign to kill homeless people because it's 'more humane' then I might consider it an acceptable option for homeless animals too,' said one post.

'Hacked' Benghazi E-Mails Pose Questions About Attack Timeline

by Kerry Picket 

(Breitbart) - Russia Today has posted the complete set of e-mails reportedly sent from former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The e-mails were initially obtained last week from a hacker who goes by the name “Guccifer.” Russia Today was among a number of media outlets and political staffers who were sent the correspondence. The emails have yet to be confirmed as authentic.

Blumenthal, now a journalist whose AOL account was compromised last week, allegedly passed along sensitive information to Clinton about the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. The e-mails posted by Russia Today contain four memos all marked “Confidential.”

The oldest memo, referencing the Benghazi attack, is time stamped September 12, 2012, one day after the assault. This was, according to Russia Today, “mere hours after four Americans were killed in a deadly assault on the US consulate building in Benghazi. Chris Stevens, an ambassador for the United States, was among those killed.”

It should be noted that not only does interim Libyan President Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf reportedly place blame for the attack on the internet video trailer, The Innocence of Muslims but also “to an attack on the U.S. mission in Egypt on the same day.”

Additionally, the Libyan leader also points to the “widespread publicity regarding the security situation in the country between 2004 and 2010 and the cooperation that developed between 2004 and 2010 and cooperation that developed between a number of Western Intelligence services and the regime of former dictator Muammar al Qaddafi.”

The emails were copied and pasted into a new document so header information on the emails are unavailable for examination. It is unclear which time zone the email above is referencing, Libyan or eastern standard time. The Blumenthal e-mail describes the interim Libyan president’s September 11 “afternoon” discussion with his advisors, which places it before the actual attacks in Benghazi. Either there is a discrepancy in the timeline or the dates were transcribed incorrectly by the hacker Guccifer, or Blumenthal typed in the incorrect time reference.

Assuming the official Pentagon timeline of the Benghazi attack is correct, the actual assault happened on September 11, 2012 9:42 PM (Benghazi time) or 3:42 PM(EST).

If the information contained in the Blumenthal e-mail is referencing the time in Benghazi, it would be implausible for the interim Libyan president, el Magariaf, to be discussing the Benghazi attack hours before it happened. On the other hand, if the “afternoon” time zone referenced is EST, then el Magariaf would have had a short window to gather “his senior advisors including the members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the attacks by demonstrators on U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.”

According to a CBS News timeline, on September 11 at 9:40 PM (Benghazi time) (3:40 EST), the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was alerted of the Benghazi attack.

9:40 p.m. (3:40 p.m. ET): Gunfire and an explosion are heard. A TOC agent sees dozens of armed people over security camera flowing through a pedestrian gate at the compound's main entrance. It is not clear how the gate was opened.

The agent hits the alarm and alerts the CIA security team in the nearby annex and the Libyan 17th of February Brigade, one of several powerful militias serving as a de facto security presence in Benghazi. The embassy in Tripoli and the State Dept. command center were also alerted.

State Dept. Diplomatic Security follows events in real time on a listen-only, audio-only feed, according to testimony of Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant director for international programs, given before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Oct 10.

The CBS News timeline describes a call for an attack against the U.S. embassy in Tripoli by midnight Benghazi time, hours after the “afternoon” discussion el Magariaf had with his advisors:

12:07 a.m. (6:07 p.m. ET): An alert from the State Dept. Operations Center states that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli reports the Islamic military group "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack"... "on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Around 12:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. ET): A six-man security team, including two Defense Dept. personnel, leave Embassy Tripoli for Benghazi.

Russia Today sent an inquiry to Blumenthal on Wednesday asking about the authenticity of the e-mail correspondence between him and Clinton and has not received a response yet.

DHS Tells a ‘Stunned’ Congress: We Still Can’t Measure Border Security

by John Hill
Stand With Arizona

Uh, oh…looks like Janet Incompetanto’s disastrous management of DHS may threaten the passage of illegal alien amnesty that elites in both parties are determined to shove down our throats, by her utter failure to secure the border.

DHS officials told Congress Wednesday they still “don’t have a way to effectively measure border security” — a revelation that lawmakers said could “doom the chances for passing an immigration legalization bill this year”.

Three years after the Obama administration scrapped the previous yardstick, which measured miles of the border under “operational control,” top Customs and Border Protection officials told Congress the new measure they’re working on won’t be ready for public use any time in the near future.

It will never be “ready”. Here’s why: the entire reason DHS has been desperately trying to come up with some new, phony “metric” for border security, is so they could stop using the embarrassing ACTUAL metric called “operation control” that shows how grossly INsecure the border really is.

For example, in 2010, the last time the figure was reported, a government audit found JUST 44 PERCENT of the border was under “operational control” – a figure then-House Judiciary committee chairman Lamar Smith rightly called “a failing grade”…

That’s right, in 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report finding the U.S.-Mexico border is vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity. Of the nearly 2,000 miles separating the U.S. and Mexico, only 129 miles are under “full control” of the Border Patrol. The report found that 873 miles are under “operational control,” which is only 44 percent of the entire Southern border. This report contradicts Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano’s recent remarks that the Administration’s “border security approach is working.”

Big Sis just couldn’t let THAT stand. So DHS has spent the last 3 years trying to come up with a new way to spin their failure – and today revealed to a shocked Congress that they couldn’t:

When they scrapped the operational control yardstick, Homeland Security officials had said they’d have a new one ready in 2012. A year later, members of Congress said they’re still waiting.

The revelation “stunned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle”, who said that without a way to measure border security, they “may not be able to convince voters to accept a new legalization”.

“You do not want the Department of Homeland Security to be the stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform for this country, and it could happen. So get in the game,” said Rep. Candice S. Miller, chairwoman of the House’s border security subcommittee.

Boo hoo! The elites, along with their activist and media allies, and slave-labor addicted business lobbyists like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have been one happy choir singing “The border is secure, the border is secure”, so they could fast-track the mother-of-all-amnesties. But to any even semi-rational mind, this was a ridiculous farce from the start. the border is nowhere near secure by any definition. And now the cat is out of the bag, and those same elites are not happy about it.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said she doesn’t think legalization should be held up over the issue, but said Homeland Security needs to do better.

“You’ve got to get in the game,” she said. “What I’m hearing here is not really a definitive game strategy.”

When you are losing even mindless sycophants like Sheila Jackson-Lee, you know you are in big trouble.