From: CNS News
The mother of diplomat Sean Smith, who was killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012, said that at her son’s memorial service President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Susan Rice told her that the attack occurred because of an anti-Muslim video, although evidence now shows the White House was told by the CIA “that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” and that the agency never mentioned a “video.”
It is also now known that White House and State Department officials edited the talking points provided by the CIA to remove any references to the al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia and earlier warnings from the agency about terrorist threats against the Benghazi compound. The talking points, in their various versions, never mentioned the anti-Muslim video touted by the president, Clinton and Rice.
Sean Smith, killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack, was 34 years old and worked for the U.S. Foreign Service as an Information Management Officer. He was married and had two children. The memorial service for Smith and the other three Americans killed occurred on Sept. 14 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama spoke at the service.
Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, was interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor on May 9 about congressional hearings into the attack and new testimony by whistleblowers about what happened on Sept. 11, 2012.
Part of the exchange between host Bill O’Reilly and Pat Smith about events at the memorial service is presented below:
Bill O’Reilly: “Did Hillary Clinton say anything to you? Did President Obama, did they say anything to you on that day?”
Pat Smith: “Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video. Every one of them told me that.”
O’Reilly: “They actually told you it was the video? Both Secretary of State Clinton and the president told you it was the videotape?"
Pat Smith: “Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also.”
O’Reilly: “Face to face?”
Pat Smith: “Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me."
O’Reilly: “And that was 3 days after the attack, correct? The 14th?"
Pat Smith: “Well, whenever it was – it was at the ceremony [at Andrews Air Force base].”
O’Reilly: “September 14, three days after the attack.”
While the talking points used by the Obama administration do not mention a video, Secretary Clinton did issue a statement on Sept. 11, while the attack was still ongoing in Benghazi, stating that, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
When CNSNews.com asked the State Department who gave Clinton that information, while the Benghazi attack was still unfolding, spokesman Patrick Ventrell would not answer.
Showing posts with label CNS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNS. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Author Quotes Then-Professor Obama Saying, 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns'
From: CNS News
In his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John Lott Jr., assesses the presidency of Barack Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago.
In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.
Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.
"He did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together," Lott writes.
After he introduced himself to Obama, Lott suggested that they have lunch one day to discuss their views on guns. According to Lott, Obama "grimaced and turned away." That was the way many conversations with Obama ended, Lott says.
Although the Law School was famous for the openness of its faculty and friendly engagement, Lott says, "Obama...preferred silent, scowling disdain to collegiality."
President Barack Obama describes his views on guns much differently now that he is on the national stage, Lott believes, pointing to an interview on Fox News in which Obama states, "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right."
But, Lott isn't convinced:
"Despite his assurance to Fox News that he understands the Second Amendment, it's a good bet that the positions Obama took on guns during his time at Chicago reveal his true convictions."
The chapter documents the actions that Obama has taken on guns, citing the following:
He ends with a warning:
"The greatest threat is in his [Obama's] power to reshape the federal courts...Each appointment to the Supreme Court could determine whether the people are allowed to keep their guns."
In his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John Lott Jr., assesses the presidency of Barack Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago.
In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.
Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.
"He did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together," Lott writes.
After he introduced himself to Obama, Lott suggested that they have lunch one day to discuss their views on guns. According to Lott, Obama "grimaced and turned away." That was the way many conversations with Obama ended, Lott says.
Although the Law School was famous for the openness of its faculty and friendly engagement, Lott says, "Obama...preferred silent, scowling disdain to collegiality."
President Barack Obama describes his views on guns much differently now that he is on the national stage, Lott believes, pointing to an interview on Fox News in which Obama states, "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right."
But, Lott isn't convinced:
"Despite his assurance to Fox News that he understands the Second Amendment, it's a good bet that the positions Obama took on guns during his time at Chicago reveal his true convictions."
The chapter documents the actions that Obama has taken on guns, citing the following:
- In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
- In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
- In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores
He ends with a warning:
"The greatest threat is in his [Obama's] power to reshape the federal courts...Each appointment to the Supreme Court could determine whether the people are allowed to keep their guns."
Thursday, February 07, 2013
No Deal! Bishops to Administration: You Can't Force Catholics to Act Against Faith
From: CNS News
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Thursday signaling to the Obama Administration that the bishops will not make a separate deal to exempt Catholic institutions from an Obamacare mandate that requires health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs that leaves lay Catholic business owners and individual employees still subject to the mandate.
“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” said Cardinal Dolan. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”
The cardinal said the bishops will also continue to support the many lawsuits against the regulation--including those brought by private busineses--that are moving forward in federal courts around the country.
The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons dedicated to advancing the principles of the Catholic Church, issued a statement supporting the bishops' stand in defending the religious freedom of all Americans.
“We stand with the bishops today in rejecting the proposed ‘accommodation’ which still violates the religious freedom of Americans," said The Catholic Association.
"The bishops have recognized in their statement that when the religious freedom of one is compromised, the religious freedom of everyone is compromised, whether they be their own affiliated institutions or non-Catholic institutions or for-profit employers," said the association. "We call on this administration to provide an acceptable exemption for people of faith, and to put an end to its anti-religious liberty policies.”
Cardinal Dolan's statement was specifically responding to a new version of the Obamacare regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week. The new proposal would slightly modify how Obamacare defines the “religious” institutions that can be exempted from the sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate. However, the proposed new version of the regulation would still force Catholic non-profits (such as hospitals, charities and colleges) to buy health care plans from carriers that, in turn, would be required to set up theoretically cost-free separate policies to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to all beneficiaries. Further, the new proposal would provide no relief at all to individual Catholic lay people, whether they own a business or are employees.
Cardinal Dolan noted that the bishops will continue to judge the Obamacare regulation within the framework they laid out in a document the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops initially published last March and that all U.S. Catholic bishops unanimously approved in June.
“Third, the bishops explained that the ‘HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all:individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said Cardinal Dolan, citing the bishops' unanimous declaration.
“This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday's action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this ‘third class.’”
Cardinal Dolan’s statement included some placatory language, and the bishops seemed to be taking care to indicate they were not yet closing the door to working with the administration to find an outcome that will allow American Catholics to live both according to their faith and according to whatever final Obamacare regulations the administration ultimately decides to enforce.
“Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few,” said Cardinal Dolan.
“Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage," the Cardinal said. "We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration's invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.”
In an analysis published last August, the National Catholic Bioethics Center said that in keeping with Catholic moral teaching all Catholic business owners should drop health insurance coverage for all of their employees by no later than next January if the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is not lifted.
Last year, when the initial regulation was finalized, many of the nation’s Catholic bishops wrote letters to their congregations, declaring: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Thursday signaling to the Obama Administration that the bishops will not make a separate deal to exempt Catholic institutions from an Obamacare mandate that requires health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs that leaves lay Catholic business owners and individual employees still subject to the mandate.
“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” said Cardinal Dolan. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”
The cardinal said the bishops will also continue to support the many lawsuits against the regulation--including those brought by private busineses--that are moving forward in federal courts around the country.
The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons dedicated to advancing the principles of the Catholic Church, issued a statement supporting the bishops' stand in defending the religious freedom of all Americans.
“We stand with the bishops today in rejecting the proposed ‘accommodation’ which still violates the religious freedom of Americans," said The Catholic Association.
"The bishops have recognized in their statement that when the religious freedom of one is compromised, the religious freedom of everyone is compromised, whether they be their own affiliated institutions or non-Catholic institutions or for-profit employers," said the association. "We call on this administration to provide an acceptable exemption for people of faith, and to put an end to its anti-religious liberty policies.”
Cardinal Dolan's statement was specifically responding to a new version of the Obamacare regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week. The new proposal would slightly modify how Obamacare defines the “religious” institutions that can be exempted from the sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate. However, the proposed new version of the regulation would still force Catholic non-profits (such as hospitals, charities and colleges) to buy health care plans from carriers that, in turn, would be required to set up theoretically cost-free separate policies to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to all beneficiaries. Further, the new proposal would provide no relief at all to individual Catholic lay people, whether they own a business or are employees.
Cardinal Dolan noted that the bishops will continue to judge the Obamacare regulation within the framework they laid out in a document the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops initially published last March and that all U.S. Catholic bishops unanimously approved in June.
“Third, the bishops explained that the ‘HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all:individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said Cardinal Dolan, citing the bishops' unanimous declaration.
“This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday's action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this ‘third class.’”
Cardinal Dolan’s statement included some placatory language, and the bishops seemed to be taking care to indicate they were not yet closing the door to working with the administration to find an outcome that will allow American Catholics to live both according to their faith and according to whatever final Obamacare regulations the administration ultimately decides to enforce.
“Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few,” said Cardinal Dolan.
“Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage," the Cardinal said. "We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration's invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.”
In an analysis published last August, the National Catholic Bioethics Center said that in keeping with Catholic moral teaching all Catholic business owners should drop health insurance coverage for all of their employees by no later than next January if the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is not lifted.
Last year, when the initial regulation was finalized, many of the nation’s Catholic bishops wrote letters to their congregations, declaring: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Oregon AG Investigates Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Lesbians
From: CNS News
The Oregon attorney general’s office is investigating a Portland-area bakery after a lesbian couple filed a complaint alleging that the owner discriminated against them when he declined to make a wedding cake for their same-sex “marriage.”
Aaron Klein, who owns and operates Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery along with his wife in Gresham, Ore., said he received notice of the complaint last week from the Oregon Department of Justice.
The complaint stems from an incident which occurred Jan. 17, when a woman came in with her mother to test wedding cakes.
“I did my normal thing, where I asked what the bride-and-grooms’ first names were to write down on our wedding cake contract,” Klein told CNSNews.com.
“She – the girl – giggled a little bit and then informed me it was two brides. At which point, I looked up from my paper, and said, ‘I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t waste your time, but we don’t do same-sex marriages. We don’t believe it is right.”
Klein said the woman and her mother “looked at each other with a little bit of a disgusted look” and got up to leave.
“Ten minutes later the mother came back in and told me I got to say my piece and I have a right to my opinion, but she wanted to give me hers, or say her opinion, and I said, ‘OK, go ahead.
“She proceeded to tell me that she used to think like I did, then her daughter told her she was gay, and she realized that God had made her daughter that way. And disagreed with her. I told her the Bible doesn’t say that.
She told me that I needed to read my Bible, and I quoted Leviticus 20:13, at which point she told me I was wrong, and stormed out.”
Jeff Manning, communications director for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, confirmed for CNSNews.com that the complaint, which had been filed by Laurel Bowman of Portland, was being investigated by the consumer protection division of the Oregon Department of Justice. (See Complaint)
According to the complaint, Bowman said that she and her fiancé purchased a wedding cake in November of 2011 for her mother’s wedding for $250.
“When we decided to get married ourselves we chose to go back and purchase a second cake,” the complaint stated.
“When asked dfor (sic) a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid $250 once and having done business in the past. We were informed that our money was equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable.”
Bowman could not be reached for this story.
Manning said that while Oregon does not sanction same-sex marriage, it is against Oregon law for “a public accommodation” to refuse to do business with a customer on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The baker, meanwhile, told CNSNews.com that neither he nor his wife have been secretive about their beliefs, and that others have asked in the past if he makes cakes for same-sex weddings – without incident.
“Usually it starts out with questions – ‘Do you do same-sex wedding cakes?’ And we’ve always been really respectful about it and said, ‘No, it’s against our religious beliefs, and we just don’t do them.
Everybody up ‘till this point has been really understanding.”
Klein said he is merely standing up for his Christian beliefs.
“I believe that the Book of Genesis tells us, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife,’ and I believe that when it says a man and a woman, it means a man and a woman. I believe that that is the institution of marriage from the beginning of time, and it’s something God ordained. I don’t want to be a part of the redefinition of that in any way, shape or form.”
Mat Staver, president of religious-liberty law firm Liberty Counsel, told CNSNews.com that no one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to stay in the bakery business. But that constitutional principle is no longer a slam-dunk.
“I think, clearly someone who raises a religious rights objection clearly has a right to be able to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and in this case should not have to cater a same-sex wedding,” Staver told CNSNews.com.
“However, I do know that in many parts of the country where there is either a sexual orientation or gender identity non-discrimination law, or even worse, a state that sanctions same-sex marriage, that when religious freedom collides with the homosexual agenda, the homosexual agenda, typically has been winning and religious free exercise has been losing.”
According to the Oregon Department of Justice, the matter is currently at the preliminary stage.
The Oregon attorney general’s office is investigating a Portland-area bakery after a lesbian couple filed a complaint alleging that the owner discriminated against them when he declined to make a wedding cake for their same-sex “marriage.”
Aaron Klein, who owns and operates Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery along with his wife in Gresham, Ore., said he received notice of the complaint last week from the Oregon Department of Justice.
The complaint stems from an incident which occurred Jan. 17, when a woman came in with her mother to test wedding cakes.
“I did my normal thing, where I asked what the bride-and-grooms’ first names were to write down on our wedding cake contract,” Klein told CNSNews.com.
“She – the girl – giggled a little bit and then informed me it was two brides. At which point, I looked up from my paper, and said, ‘I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t waste your time, but we don’t do same-sex marriages. We don’t believe it is right.”
Klein said the woman and her mother “looked at each other with a little bit of a disgusted look” and got up to leave.
“Ten minutes later the mother came back in and told me I got to say my piece and I have a right to my opinion, but she wanted to give me hers, or say her opinion, and I said, ‘OK, go ahead.
“She proceeded to tell me that she used to think like I did, then her daughter told her she was gay, and she realized that God had made her daughter that way. And disagreed with her. I told her the Bible doesn’t say that.
She told me that I needed to read my Bible, and I quoted Leviticus 20:13, at which point she told me I was wrong, and stormed out.”
Jeff Manning, communications director for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, confirmed for CNSNews.com that the complaint, which had been filed by Laurel Bowman of Portland, was being investigated by the consumer protection division of the Oregon Department of Justice. (See Complaint)
According to the complaint, Bowman said that she and her fiancé purchased a wedding cake in November of 2011 for her mother’s wedding for $250.
“When we decided to get married ourselves we chose to go back and purchase a second cake,” the complaint stated.
“When asked dfor (sic) a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid $250 once and having done business in the past. We were informed that our money was equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable.”
Bowman could not be reached for this story.
Manning said that while Oregon does not sanction same-sex marriage, it is against Oregon law for “a public accommodation” to refuse to do business with a customer on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The baker, meanwhile, told CNSNews.com that neither he nor his wife have been secretive about their beliefs, and that others have asked in the past if he makes cakes for same-sex weddings – without incident.
“Usually it starts out with questions – ‘Do you do same-sex wedding cakes?’ And we’ve always been really respectful about it and said, ‘No, it’s against our religious beliefs, and we just don’t do them.
Everybody up ‘till this point has been really understanding.”
Klein said he is merely standing up for his Christian beliefs.
“I believe that the Book of Genesis tells us, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife,’ and I believe that when it says a man and a woman, it means a man and a woman. I believe that that is the institution of marriage from the beginning of time, and it’s something God ordained. I don’t want to be a part of the redefinition of that in any way, shape or form.”
Mat Staver, president of religious-liberty law firm Liberty Counsel, told CNSNews.com that no one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to stay in the bakery business. But that constitutional principle is no longer a slam-dunk.
“I think, clearly someone who raises a religious rights objection clearly has a right to be able to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and in this case should not have to cater a same-sex wedding,” Staver told CNSNews.com.
“However, I do know that in many parts of the country where there is either a sexual orientation or gender identity non-discrimination law, or even worse, a state that sanctions same-sex marriage, that when religious freedom collides with the homosexual agenda, the homosexual agenda, typically has been winning and religious free exercise has been losing.”
According to the Oregon Department of Justice, the matter is currently at the preliminary stage.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Justice Dept: to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business
From: CNSNews.com
The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its Mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.
At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment—the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.
The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius--a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.
The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since—growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.
The Newlands’ lawsuit challenges a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized earlier this year that requires virtually all health plans to cover--without cost-sharing--sterilizations and all Food-and-Drug Administration approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius's rule.
The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”
While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.
In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands' church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius's regulation.
In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.
The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its Mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.
At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment—the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.
The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius--a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.
The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since—growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.
Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius's rule.
The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”
While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.
In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands' church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius's regulation.
In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.
Monday, July 23, 2012
8,753,935: Workers on Disability Set Another Record in July
From: CNSNews.com
The number of workers taking federal disability insurance payments hit yet another record in July, increasing to 8,753,935 during the month from the previous record of 8,733,461 set in June, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.
The 8,753,935 workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July exceeded the population of 39 of the 50 states. Only 11 states—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey—had more people in them than the number of workers on the federal disability insurance rolls in July.
Virginia, the twelfth most-populous state, had 8,096,604 people in 2011, according to the latest Census Bureau estimate. That would make Virginia’s population about 657,331 less than the number of workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July.
Congress enacted legislation in 1956 to add federal disability insurance to the Social Security system. Over the decades, the number of Americans actually working has dramatically declined relative to the number claiming federal disability insurance payments.
By July 1967, there 74,520,000 Americans actually working and 1,145,663 workers taking disability payments. That made a ratio of 65 actual workers for each worker collecting disability. In July 1987, there were 112,634,000 people actually working and 2,759,852 people collecting disability—a ratio of about 41 actual workers to each worker collecting disability.
Virginia, the twelfth most-populous state, had 8,096,604 people in 2011, according to the latest Census Bureau estimate. That would make Virginia’s population about 657,331 less than the number of workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July.
Congress enacted legislation in 1956 to add federal disability insurance to the Social Security system. Over the decades, the number of Americans actually working has dramatically declined relative to the number claiming federal disability insurance payments.
By July 1967, there 74,520,000 Americans actually working and 1,145,663 workers taking disability payments. That made a ratio of 65 actual workers for each worker collecting disability. In July 1987, there were 112,634,000 people actually working and 2,759,852 people collecting disability—a ratio of about 41 actual workers to each worker collecting disability.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
State Dep’t Official Defends Decision Not to Designate Boko Haram a Terrorist Organization
From: CNSNews.com
Testifying on Capitol Hill this week, the State Department’s top official for Africa defended the decision not to designate Boko Haram as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) – but then used the term “terrorist organization” in reference to the Nigerian Islamist group.
A Nigerian Christian leader criticized the move, saying failure to designate Boko Haram as an FTO emboldened the group and signaled that its targeting of Christians was acceptable.
The administration on June 21 listed three Boko Haram leaders as “specially designated global terrorists” (SDGTs) but stopped short to designating the group as an FTO under U.S. law, a step some Republican lawmakers have long been urging.
Individuals and entities listed as SDGTs have any assets they may hold in the U.S. frozen, and Americans are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
Appearing before the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights on Tuesday, Johnnie Carson, assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of African Affairs, spoke about the decision.
“Before we prescribe actions, it is important that we understand what Boko Haram is and what it is not,” he said in his prepared remarks. “The truth is that our understanding is limited at best.
“Boko Haram is composed of at least two organizations, a larger organization focused primarily on discrediting the Nigerian government, and a smaller more dangerous group that is increasingly sophisticated and increasingly lethal.”
Questioned by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the subcommittee, Carson said most followers of Boko Haram were only interested in discrediting the government – both under the current Christian president and his Muslim predecessor – for its “failure to provide services to people.”
Then Carson called the group a “terrorist organization.”
“Boko Haram’s emergence as a terrorist organization in Nigeria predates the current government, and irrespective whether there is a Christian leader or a Muslim leader in the country, as long as the social, economic problems exist in the North to the extent that they do, there will be a reaction which may in fact – as this one does – take on political consequences,” he said.
Testifying on Capitol Hill this week, the State Department’s top official for Africa defended the decision not to designate Boko Haram as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) – but then used the term “terrorist organization” in reference to the Nigerian Islamist group.
A Nigerian Christian leader criticized the move, saying failure to designate Boko Haram as an FTO emboldened the group and signaled that its targeting of Christians was acceptable.
The administration on June 21 listed three Boko Haram leaders as “specially designated global terrorists” (SDGTs) but stopped short to designating the group as an FTO under U.S. law, a step some Republican lawmakers have long been urging.
Individuals and entities listed as SDGTs have any assets they may hold in the U.S. frozen, and Americans are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
Appearing before the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights on Tuesday, Johnnie Carson, assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of African Affairs, spoke about the decision.
“Before we prescribe actions, it is important that we understand what Boko Haram is and what it is not,” he said in his prepared remarks. “The truth is that our understanding is limited at best.
“Boko Haram is composed of at least two organizations, a larger organization focused primarily on discrediting the Nigerian government, and a smaller more dangerous group that is increasingly sophisticated and increasingly lethal.”
Questioned by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the subcommittee, Carson said most followers of Boko Haram were only interested in discrediting the government – both under the current Christian president and his Muslim predecessor – for its “failure to provide services to people.”
Then Carson called the group a “terrorist organization.”
“Boko Haram’s emergence as a terrorist organization in Nigeria predates the current government, and irrespective whether there is a Christian leader or a Muslim leader in the country, as long as the social, economic problems exist in the North to the extent that they do, there will be a reaction which may in fact – as this one does – take on political consequences,” he said.
Monday, July 02, 2012
Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious
From: CNSNews.com
Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.
“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.
Over the course of several days, CNSNews.com left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.
Dennis K. Burke has had a long career working as an aide and political appointee to Democratic elected officials. From 1989 to 1994, he was a counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working in that capacity for several years on an assault-weapons ban, which was finally enacted on Sept. 13, 1994 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That act expired on Sept. 13, 2004. (See NYT: Dennis Burke, Sen. DeConcini, Weapons Ban.pdf)
From 1994-95, Burke served in the Clinton Justice Department in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and in 1997-99, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona.
From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that on Jan. 9, 2008, while working as Gov. Napolitano’s chief of staff, Burke contributed $2,000 to then-Sen Obama’s presidential primary campaign. Since 1997, according to FEC records, Burke has contributed a total of $16,350 to various Democratic candidates.
After Obama was elected in November 2008, Burke joined his presidential transition team, serving on the Immigration Policy Working Group.
Eight days before Obama’s inauguration, on Jan. 12, 2009--while Burke was working on the transition team--Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, Obama “pledged” to take action to stop the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
Obama also decided to put Burke’s old boss, incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in a leadership role in making the gun-trafficking problem a top priority.
“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement at the time. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico.”
When Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary, Burke moved from the Obama transition team to become her senior adviser. On Feb. 25, 2009, a little more than a month after Obama had made his “pledge” to Calderon, Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee. She stressed that stopping the flow of guns to Mexico was a top priority of the Obama administration and key focus of her work.
Responding to a question about violence on the border, Napolitano said the administration was going to work with the Mexican government on the issue. Then she said: “Secondly, it is looking at, government-wide, at what we can do to stop the southbound export of weaponry, particularly assault-type weapons and grenades that are being used in that drug war.”
Napolitano further noted that drug cartels were targeting Mexican government officials and law enforcement officers, and that, given the seriousness of the threat, Obama’s national security adviser, the attorney general, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Customs (of which the Border Patrol is part) would all be working on the issue.
Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.
“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.
Over the course of several days, CNSNews.com left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.
Dennis K. Burke has had a long career working as an aide and political appointee to Democratic elected officials. From 1989 to 1994, he was a counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working in that capacity for several years on an assault-weapons ban, which was finally enacted on Sept. 13, 1994 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That act expired on Sept. 13, 2004. (See NYT: Dennis Burke, Sen. DeConcini, Weapons Ban.pdf)
From 1994-95, Burke served in the Clinton Justice Department in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and in 1997-99, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona.
From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that on Jan. 9, 2008, while working as Gov. Napolitano’s chief of staff, Burke contributed $2,000 to then-Sen Obama’s presidential primary campaign. Since 1997, according to FEC records, Burke has contributed a total of $16,350 to various Democratic candidates.
After Obama was elected in November 2008, Burke joined his presidential transition team, serving on the Immigration Policy Working Group.
Eight days before Obama’s inauguration, on Jan. 12, 2009--while Burke was working on the transition team--Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, Obama “pledged” to take action to stop the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
Obama also decided to put Burke’s old boss, incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in a leadership role in making the gun-trafficking problem a top priority.
“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement at the time. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico.”
When Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary, Burke moved from the Obama transition team to become her senior adviser. On Feb. 25, 2009, a little more than a month after Obama had made his “pledge” to Calderon, Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee. She stressed that stopping the flow of guns to Mexico was a top priority of the Obama administration and key focus of her work.
Napolitano further noted that drug cartels were targeting Mexican government officials and law enforcement officers, and that, given the seriousness of the threat, Obama’s national security adviser, the attorney general, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Customs (of which the Border Patrol is part) would all be working on the issue.
8,733,461: Workers on Federal 'Disability' Exceed Population of New York
From: CNSNews.com
A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration. That was up from 8,707,185 in May.
It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau's latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.
There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.
In June 1992, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 118,419,000 people employed in the United States, and, according to the Social Security Administration, there were 3,334,333 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 35.5 people actually working.
When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people employed and 7,442,377 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 19.1 people actually working.
In May of this year, there were 142,287,000 people employed, and 8,707,185 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled 1 worker taking disability payments for each 16.3 people working.
The federal disability payments made to the record 8,733,461 workers in June averaged $1,111.42.
Only 11 states--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas—have populations in excess of the 8,733,461 workers who took disability payments in June.
New Jersey’s 2010 Census population of 8,807,501 approximates the 8,733,461 workers who collected federal disability insurance in June.
In addition to the 8,733,461 workers taking federal disability payments in June, there were also 165,469 spouses of disabled workers getting federal disability payments and 1,899,756 children of disabled workers getting benefits. That brought the total number of beneficiaries receiving disability insurance payment in June to 10,798,686.
Federal disability insurance is funded by a 1.8 percent payroll tax split between employers and workers. Self-employed people pay the entire 1.8 percent.
The Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund has run deficits in each of the last three fiscal years, meaning the government has needed to borrow money to pay disability benefits to the workers claiming them. In fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund deficit was $8.5 billion. In fiscal 2010, it was $20.8 billion. And in fiscal 2011, it was $25.3 billion.
To be eligible for federal disability insurance payments, a person must have worked long enough to have qualified for the benefits and must also meet the Social Security Administration’s definition of “disabled.”
“We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if: You cannot do work that you did before; we decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death,” says the Social Security Administration.
Whether someone has worked long enough to qualify for federal disability insurance payments depends on their age and the number of “credits” they have earned from the Social Security system.
“Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income,” SSA explains. “You can earn up to four credits each year. The amount needed for a credit changes from year to year. In 2012, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,130 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4,520, you've earned your four credits for the year.”
According to SSA’s formula, someone under 24 years of age would qualify for disability payments if he or she had earned at least 6 credits—or about $6,780—over the three years before they became disabled.
A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration. That was up from 8,707,185 in May.
It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau's latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.
There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.
In June 1992, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 118,419,000 people employed in the United States, and, according to the Social Security Administration, there were 3,334,333 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 35.5 people actually working.
When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people employed and 7,442,377 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 19.1 people actually working.
In May of this year, there were 142,287,000 people employed, and 8,707,185 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled 1 worker taking disability payments for each 16.3 people working.
The federal disability payments made to the record 8,733,461 workers in June averaged $1,111.42.
Only 11 states--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas—have populations in excess of the 8,733,461 workers who took disability payments in June.
New Jersey’s 2010 Census population of 8,807,501 approximates the 8,733,461 workers who collected federal disability insurance in June.
In addition to the 8,733,461 workers taking federal disability payments in June, there were also 165,469 spouses of disabled workers getting federal disability payments and 1,899,756 children of disabled workers getting benefits. That brought the total number of beneficiaries receiving disability insurance payment in June to 10,798,686.
Federal disability insurance is funded by a 1.8 percent payroll tax split between employers and workers. Self-employed people pay the entire 1.8 percent.
The Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund has run deficits in each of the last three fiscal years, meaning the government has needed to borrow money to pay disability benefits to the workers claiming them. In fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund deficit was $8.5 billion. In fiscal 2010, it was $20.8 billion. And in fiscal 2011, it was $25.3 billion.
To be eligible for federal disability insurance payments, a person must have worked long enough to have qualified for the benefits and must also meet the Social Security Administration’s definition of “disabled.”
“We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if: You cannot do work that you did before; we decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death,” says the Social Security Administration.
Whether someone has worked long enough to qualify for federal disability insurance payments depends on their age and the number of “credits” they have earned from the Social Security system.
“Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income,” SSA explains. “You can earn up to four credits each year. The amount needed for a credit changes from year to year. In 2012, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,130 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4,520, you've earned your four credits for the year.”
According to SSA’s formula, someone under 24 years of age would qualify for disability payments if he or she had earned at least 6 credits—or about $6,780—over the three years before they became disabled.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Catholic Bishops Unanimous ‘In Our Vigorous Opposition to This Unjust and Illegal Mandate
From: CNSNews.com
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—sets the stage for an historically unprecedented confrontation between Roman Catholics and the federal government over whether Catholics remain free to exercise their religion in the United States of America.
The court’s decision leaves untouched the “preventive services” provision in the legislation under which the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
On June 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States—representing dioceses from Los Angeles to New York, from New Orleans to Chicago, from Miami to Seattle, and from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco—unanimously adopted a document that cited their “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and because the individual mandate in Obamacare will force virtually all individuals in the United States to purchase government approved health-care plans, Obamacare—as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday—will require all Catholic laypersons in the United States to buy health insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith.
The HHS regulation will also require Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate the Catholic faith.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a Catholic who has been ordered by her archbishop not to take Holy Communion until she recants her position in favor of legal abortion and goes to confession—has given most employers until Aug. 1 to comply with this regulation. She has allowed religiously affiliated non-profit organizations (such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) that do not currently cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients an additional year--until Aug. 1, 2013--to comply with the mandate and then violate the teachings of their faith.
Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions—including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University—have filed lawsuits against the sterilzation-contraception-abortifacient mandate arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Since the Catholics filed their lawsuits, President Obama has boasted about the contraception mandate in public speeches.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—sets the stage for an historically unprecedented confrontation between Roman Catholics and the federal government over whether Catholics remain free to exercise their religion in the United States of America.
The court’s decision leaves untouched the “preventive services” provision in the legislation under which the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
On June 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States—representing dioceses from Los Angeles to New York, from New Orleans to Chicago, from Miami to Seattle, and from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco—unanimously adopted a document that cited their “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and because the individual mandate in Obamacare will force virtually all individuals in the United States to purchase government approved health-care plans, Obamacare—as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday—will require all Catholic laypersons in the United States to buy health insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith.
The HHS regulation will also require Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate the Catholic faith.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a Catholic who has been ordered by her archbishop not to take Holy Communion until she recants her position in favor of legal abortion and goes to confession—has given most employers until Aug. 1 to comply with this regulation. She has allowed religiously affiliated non-profit organizations (such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) that do not currently cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients an additional year--until Aug. 1, 2013--to comply with the mandate and then violate the teachings of their faith.
Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions—including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University—have filed lawsuits against the sterilzation-contraception-abortifacient mandate arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Since the Catholics filed their lawsuits, President Obama has boasted about the contraception mandate in public speeches.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Green Energy Jobs? 9 Billion Dollars Gets 910 Jobs
Van Jones Must Be So Proud
From: CNSNews.com
The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.
At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).
Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.
As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.
The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.
The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.
For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.
In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.
These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.
The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.
For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”
The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.
The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”
Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.
Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.
From: CNSNews.com
The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.
At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).
Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.
As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.
The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.
The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.
For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.
In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.
These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.
The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.
For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”
The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”
Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.
Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
U.N. Human Rights Advocates Urge G8 to Take Up ‘Robin Hood Tax’ on Wealthy Nations
From: CNSNews.com
Ahead of the G8 summit in Camp David on Friday, a group of United Nations human rights “experts” are throwing their weight behind a longstanding campaign for a so-called “Robin Hood tax” on international financial transactions.
In a statement issued in Geneva – home to the U.N.’s human rights apparatus – the five called the financial transaction tax (FTT) a way “to offset the costs of the enduring economic, financial, fuel, climate and food crises, and to protect basic human rights.”
It would provide “a pragmatic tool for providing the means for governments to protect and fulfill the human rights of their people,” they said.
“The FTT is an opportunity for governments to move beyond rhetoric in their commitments to sustainable development, and to give flesh to their noble pronouncements of solidarity,” said one of the five, Virginia Dandan, whose title is “independent expert on human rights and international solidarity.”
The decades-old idea of levying a small charge on financial transactions – dubbed a “Robin Hood tax” since it supposedly taxes rich nations to benefit poor ones – has animated a wide range of advocacy groups, who see it as a way to help tackle everything from poverty to the cost of HIV/Aids care, to the emission of gases blamed for climate change.
High-profile proponents include Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s new socialist president, Francois Hollande, both of whom will be at the G8 event and the subsequent NATO summit in Chicago. (British Prime Minister David Cameron is skeptical.)
The U.N. human rights figures urged E.U. leaders to take the lead in pushing the proposal at the G8.
The European Union’s Executive Commission has proposed the introduction of an FTT in the 27-member union with effect from January 1, 2014. At a rate of 0.1 percent for the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01 percent for derivative contracts, it estimates the mechanism could raise 57 billion euros ($73 billion) a year.
The U.N. figures welcomed the proposals, and said “E.U. countries must take bold leadership now to pave the way towards what should eventually be a global FTT.”
Cephas Lumina, whose title is “independent expert on foreign debt and human rights,” conceded that a FTT would not be “a silver bullet.”
“But it would help relieve sovereign debt load stemming from the financial crisis, shift the burden from ordinary citizens to the private sector which caused the crisis, and significantly enlarge government fiscal space for spending on desperately needed economic and social rights programs,” he said.
The FTT concept was first raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin, who saw it not primarily as a revenue-raising mechanism but as a way to curb excessive speculation.
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of “Tobin tax” at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland in 2009, to fund future financial bailouts. The U.S. and Canada rejected the idea, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said at the time had achieved “mixed” results in countries where such initiatives had been tried.
Critics say an FTT would push up interest rates, dampen investment and hamper rather than stimulate growth.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) last year introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., global health programs directed at fighting HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and other health needs in developing countries, global “climate change adaptation and mitigation,” and U.S. deficit reduction.
The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5755), was referred to the Foreign Affairs and Ways and Means committees.
Ahead of the G8 summit in Camp David on Friday, a group of United Nations human rights “experts” are throwing their weight behind a longstanding campaign for a so-called “Robin Hood tax” on international financial transactions.
In a statement issued in Geneva – home to the U.N.’s human rights apparatus – the five called the financial transaction tax (FTT) a way “to offset the costs of the enduring economic, financial, fuel, climate and food crises, and to protect basic human rights.”
It would provide “a pragmatic tool for providing the means for governments to protect and fulfill the human rights of their people,” they said.
“The FTT is an opportunity for governments to move beyond rhetoric in their commitments to sustainable development, and to give flesh to their noble pronouncements of solidarity,” said one of the five, Virginia Dandan, whose title is “independent expert on human rights and international solidarity.”
The decades-old idea of levying a small charge on financial transactions – dubbed a “Robin Hood tax” since it supposedly taxes rich nations to benefit poor ones – has animated a wide range of advocacy groups, who see it as a way to help tackle everything from poverty to the cost of HIV/Aids care, to the emission of gases blamed for climate change.
High-profile proponents include Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s new socialist president, Francois Hollande, both of whom will be at the G8 event and the subsequent NATO summit in Chicago. (British Prime Minister David Cameron is skeptical.)
The U.N. human rights figures urged E.U. leaders to take the lead in pushing the proposal at the G8.
The European Union’s Executive Commission has proposed the introduction of an FTT in the 27-member union with effect from January 1, 2014. At a rate of 0.1 percent for the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01 percent for derivative contracts, it estimates the mechanism could raise 57 billion euros ($73 billion) a year.
The U.N. figures welcomed the proposals, and said “E.U. countries must take bold leadership now to pave the way towards what should eventually be a global FTT.”
Cephas Lumina, whose title is “independent expert on foreign debt and human rights,” conceded that a FTT would not be “a silver bullet.”
“But it would help relieve sovereign debt load stemming from the financial crisis, shift the burden from ordinary citizens to the private sector which caused the crisis, and significantly enlarge government fiscal space for spending on desperately needed economic and social rights programs,” he said.
The FTT concept was first raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin, who saw it not primarily as a revenue-raising mechanism but as a way to curb excessive speculation.
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of “Tobin tax” at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland in 2009, to fund future financial bailouts. The U.S. and Canada rejected the idea, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said at the time had achieved “mixed” results in countries where such initiatives had been tried.
Critics say an FTT would push up interest rates, dampen investment and hamper rather than stimulate growth.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) last year introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., global health programs directed at fighting HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and other health needs in developing countries, global “climate change adaptation and mitigation,” and U.S. deficit reduction.
The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5755), was referred to the Foreign Affairs and Ways and Means committees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
