Wednesday, 8 January 2014

Re: How to tell if your dog is involved in a sex scandal

Only an un-sinned shall throw stones    .... .
keep clean record  .
Confirm account as best .
is the duty of all souls . 
Human beings 
In the world of competition .
we are brothers and sisters .
Together  we will march . 
 

 

Regards;
M. Ahammed Kunju
Additional Secretory (Retired)
Mob. 9446014786




On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Subject: How to tell if your dog is involved in a sex scandal

http://www.incredimail.com/app/?tag=display_picture_click_me_re&lang=9&version=6605288&setup_id=7&aff_id=102&addon=IncrediMail&upn=470c0909-c58d-4aba-a48a-d193deabee6e&app_test_id=0

 

 






--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Back to Iraq? You Bet!


January 7, 2014
Back to Iraq? You Bet!
Daniel McAdams

As usual, the interventionists who run the US foreign policy establishment are drawing all the wrong conclusions from the news that the former "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (now "al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria") has set up shop in the notorious Fallujah. Sen. John McCain and his sidekick, Sen. Lindsey Graham, issued a joint statement over the weekend which unsurprisingly blamed the whole development on President Obama's decision to withdraw US forces form Iraq in 2011.

Wrote the Senators:

When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests.

There are two things wrong with this analysis. First, the phenomenon of al-Qaeda in Iraq was created by the invasion that the two Senators championed. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2003, as we all know. So if anyone is responsible for al-Qaeda in Iraq it is McCain, Graham, and the coterie of cakewalk neo-conservatives who pushed for the war. Secondly, as the Moon of Alabama blog so deftly points out, the whole "power vacuum" argument is a reality vacuum ­ making no sense:

It was the U.S. attack on Iraq that set off the sectarian war in Iraq and beyond. It was the removal of Saddam Hussein that changed the balance between Saudi Sunnism and Iranian Shiaism which then motivated the Saudis to unleash the Jihadist forces. It was not a 'power vacuum' that created the strife that continues today and will continue in the future. It was the insertion of U.S. forces into the Middle East that led to overpressure and the current explosions.

McCain and Graham and the neocons want to have it both ways. They want us to believe that the "liberation" of Iraq produced a successful, positive result ­ a brave new society eager to spread its democratic, tolerant, and multicultural wings. That would justify their decade long (and more) advocacy of such an attack.

But at the same time they tell us that the US military can never leave Iraq lest a "power vacuum" be created that would allow "America's enemies" to establish themselves. But was the attack itself not supposed to rid Iraq of "America's enemies"? These new enemies seem far worse than the enemies the initial intervention was supposed to eliminate.

How awkward for them to face the fact that their preferred action (invasion) produced a result worse than the problem. Their Straussian answer, of course, is to ignore that glaring fact and just scream for more intervention!

The real question now, as article after article is written about how horrific the "fall of Fallujah" is to the US military who participated in the brutal pacification of that luckless town back in 2004, is to what degree the US military will be going back to Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry is sending what are no-doubt designed to be mixed signals, wrapped in the enigma of State Dept-speak. He says:

"We are not, obviously, contemplating returning."

But then a qualifier it seems:

"We are not contemplating putting boots on the ground."

Ah, so that opens the door to much possible US military activity in Iraq. As he goes on to say:

"This is their fight, but we're going to help them in their fight."

Yes, sounds like Vietnam over again, perhaps even worse than 2003. The US "hellfire" missile shipment to Iraq has been " fast-tracked." This time the US is claiming to attack the same ISIS in Iraq that it is supporting (along with the Saudis) next door in Syria.

Back to Iraq? You bet!

The Future of Food Stamps


The Future of Food Stamps
by Laurence M. Vance January 8, 2014

"We Accept EBT" says the new large sign outside of a small, local food market near my house. Electronic Benefit Transfer or EBT is the system used by states to issue welfare benefits on a card that looks like a regular credit card. Aside from being convenient and efficient, an EBT card allows users to spend their welfare benefits almost anonymously, since it looks as though they are merely using a credit card.

The most common use of EBT cards is to provide food-stamp benefits. Now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the food-stamp program is a federal program administered by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture but operated by the states. After beginning as a temporary program from 1939 to 1943 and continuing as a pilot program from 1961 to 1964, the program was made permanent as part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" reforms, along with other supposed anti-poverty measures such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Head Start.

According to SNAP monthly data, 47,636,085 persons in 23,052,389 households received $76,070,295,282 in food-stamp benefits during fiscal year 2013.

Funding for food stamps is customarily provided in the farm bill. Title IV of the bill covers domestic food and nutrition and commodity distribution programs, of which the main one is food stamps. The last Farm Bill was passed in 2008, but expired at the end of fiscal year 2012. Since then, funding for farm-bill programs has been temporarily extended.

The House and Senate are currently at an impasse over a new farm bill. The Republican-controlled House has passed one bill (H.R.2642) and the Democratic-controlled Senate has passed another (S.954). The main issue is the amount of "cuts" to the food-stamp program. Republicans are seeking nearly $40 billion in "cuts" over the next ten years, while Democrats only want about $4 billion in "cuts."

The cuts, of course, are not real cuts at all; they are reductions in the rate of increases ­ thanks to the accounting gimmick of baseline budgeting.

It is a myth that Republicans want to cut food stamps in any meaningful way.

The original Republican food-stamp bill, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013 (H.R.3102), that was incorporated into their version of the farm bill would have authorized SNAP appropriations through fiscal year 2018. It passed the House by a vote of 217-210. Every Democrat voted against the bill.

Yet, as Reason's Ira Stoll pointed out at the time,

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House bill would spend $725 billion on food stamps over the years 2014 to 2023. The Department of Agriculture's web site offers a summary of spending on the program that reports spending totaling $461.7 billion over the years 2003 to 2012, a period that included a dramatic economic downturn.
The Republicans want to increase food stamp spending 57 percent. The Democrats had previously planned to increase it by 65 percent (to $764 billion over 10 years instead of the $725 billion in the Republican bill), so they depict the Republicans as "meanspirited class warriors" seeking "deep cuts."

But still the myth continues. In a recent interview on an unrelated subject on NPR's Here & Now, John de Graaf, author of Affluenza: Why Overconsumption Is Killing Us and How to Fight Back, made this observation:

For 30 years in this society, we've allowed ourselves to do things which have consistently benefited the top 1 percent or 2 percent while punishing others. We're cutting food stamps as a society, while we refuse to tax at any higher rate the millionaires in our society.

The Washington Post's "In Play" recently talked to "two members from different sides of the aisle who share a similar experience: Both were on food stamps earlier in their life. But each one has a different idea for the future of the program."

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) may not agree on ObamaCare, the war in Afghanistan, or the size of the education budget, but there is one thing they do agree on ­ both are thankful for food stamps. Their brief comments on food stamps show the real difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the welfare state ­ there is no difference.

Representative Lee's typical meal while on food stamps was tuna noodle casserole that lasted three days. Representative Yoho preferred peanut butter and jelly, or tomato, cheese, and mayonnaise sandwiches. They are also said to have different visions for the future of the food-stamp program.

According to Representative Lee, "My dream for the SNAP program would be to increase the appropriations for SNAP and to increase the amount of funds we do for outreach and for community efforts to inform people of the fact that they're eligible for it and that they should not be ashamed or should not worry about any stigma associated with it."

Representative Yoho supports new rules for getting benefits, such as requiring those who can hold a job to have one or to volunteer. Says the congressman, "If we're going to have safety-net programs, which we are always going to have, in order to maintain them, we've got to run them properly and not let them get bloated and take people that are able-bodied that can work but choose not to. I think the majority of Americans would probably be against that." He adds that at first he was very reluctant to go on food stamps, but "when you're hungry you'll do things that you'll have to do and so we signed up on that. I never felt right using them but I was glad they were there because it is a safety net."

There is no philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans when it comes to food stamps. Both groups consider it the proper role of government to provide them. Both groups consider it the duty of taxpayers to pay for them. Their only disagreements are about the minor details of the operation of the program and how to combat the waste, inefficiency, and fraud that are inherent in all federal welfare programs.

But once you argue that the government should provide food to those who "need" it, there is no consistent argument that can be used against the government's providing housing, medical care, baby formula, school lunch, et cetera to whoever "needs" it.

And once you maintain that it is the proper role of government to provide a safety net, you are forever locked into debating questions about its size, scope, benefits, rules, eligibility, and cost because there can be no right answers to those questions.

There is, of course, a philosophical, constitutional, and moral answer to those questions that only libertarians can be found articulating: Food stamps, like all of the federal government's welfare programs, are illegitimate, unconstitutional, and immoral.

The future of food stamps for Americans who use them (one in seven) is certain as long as Democratic and Republican welfare statists have the power to help themselves to other Americans' money.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-future-of-food-stamps/

Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare

 
Watchdog: Accountability
Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare
By RICHARD POLLOCK
JANUARY 7, 2014 AT 5:05 AM


New
Obamacare health insurance enrollees may feel a pang of envy when they eye the coverage plans offered by Walmart to its employees.

For many years, the giant discount retailer has been the target of
unions and liberal activists who have harshly criticized the company's health care plans, calling them "notorious for failing to provide health benefits" and "substandard."

But a Washington Examiner comparison of the two health insurance programs found that Walmart's plan is more affordable and provides significantly better access to high-quality medical care than Obamacare.
[] 

Click here to see an infographic comparing Obamacare's health insurance premiums to Walmart's

Independent insurance agents affiliated with the National Association of Health Underwriters and health policy experts compared the two at the request of the Examiner.

Walmart furnished employee benefit information to the Examiner. Neither Obamacare advocate Families USA nor the
United Food and Commercial Workers, which backs anti-Walmart campaigns, responded to Examiner requests for comment.

Walmart offers its employees two standard plans, a Health Reimbursement Account and an alternative it calls "HRA High" that costs more out of employees' pockets but has lower deductibles. Blue Cross Blue Shield manages both plans nationally.

Also offered is a Health Savings Account plan that includes high deductibles but allows tax-free dollars to be used for coverage.
[] 

Click here to see an infographic comparing Obamacare's health access to Walmart's

For a monthly premium as low as roughly $40, an individual who is a Walmart HRA plan enrollee can obtain full-service coverage through a Blue Cross Blue Shield preferred provider organization. A family can get coverage for about $160 per month.

Unlike Obamacare, there are no income eligibility requirements. Age and gender do not alter premium rates. The company plan is the same for all of Walmart's 1.1 million enrolled employees and their dependents, from its cashiers to its CEO.

A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.

JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple.

The medical journal reported a 30-year-old smoker would pay up to $428 per month, in contrast to roughly $70 each month for a Walmart employee.

A family of four could pay a $962 premium, but the same Walmart family member would pay about $160.

Low premiums are not the only distinguishing feature of the Walmart plan. The retailer's employees can use eight of the country's most prestigious medical facilities, including
the Mayo Clinic, Pennsylvania's Geisinger Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic.

At these institutions, which Walmart calls "Centers of Excellence," Walmart employees and their dependents can get free heart or spinal surgery. They can also get free knee and hip replacements at four hospitals nationwide.

Many top-rated Walmart hospitals ­ such as the Mayo and Cleveland clinics ­ are
left out of most Obamacare exchange plans.

But the real difference between Obamacare and Walmart can be seen in the levels of day-to-day access to doctors and hospitals.

Robert Slayton, a practicing
Chicago independent insurance agent for 11 years and the former president of the Illinois State Association of Health Underwriters, described to the Examiner the differences between Walmart and Obamacare provider networks.

Slayton said the BlueChoice exchange network for
President Obama's hometown has very limited hospital participation. "In downtown Chicago, the key is the number of hospitals: 28," he said.

"Now we're going to the national network ­ this is what the Walmart network would most likely be ­ and you have 54 hospitals. That's a big difference," he said.

Former New York Lt. Gov.
Betsy McCaughey, a Republican who is now a health care advocate, said Obamacare's lack of first-class hospitals is a big problem.

"It's not just the number, but who they are. You'll find under the Obamacare exchanges that the academic hospitals have declined to participate, along with the specialists who practice at those hospitals. The same is true of cancer hospitals," she said.

"People who are seriously ill need to stay away from these exchange plans," McCaughey said.

Slayton said the gap between doctor availability in Chicago under the Obamacare and Walmart plans is dramatic.

"You will notice there are 9,837 doctors [under Obamacare]. But the larger network is 24,904 doctors. Huge, huge difference," he said.

Walmart also offers a free preventive health plan that mirrors the Obamacare plan. Its employees can take advantage of a wide range of free exams and counseling, including screenings for colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, chlamydia, diabetes, depression and special counseling for diet and obesity.

Their children can get more than 20 free preventive services, ranging including screenings for genetic disorders, autism and developmental problems to obesity, lead poisoning exposure and tuberculosis. There are also 12 free vaccinations, and free hearing and vision testing.

Walmart employees pay as little as $4 for a 30-day supply of generic drugs and only $10 for eye exams through a separate vision plan.

"It's a lot better program than people, I think, might assume without looking, just because Walmart has gotten such a bad reputation by some of the labor groups and other groups for its general activities," said Gail Wilensky after reviewing the retailer's plan.

Wilensky was head under
President George H.W. Bush of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, the predecessor to the the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS is the agency in charge of implementing a large part of the Affordable Care Act, and it oversaw the rollout of the troubled healthcare.gov website.

David Todd, an independent insurance agent based in Little Rock, Ark., also compared the health plans for the Examiner. Walmart's corporate headquarters is in Bentonville, Ark., and the company has 58,000 workers in the state.

Todd pointed to stark differences between the government plan and Walmart: "If I buy a family plan on the exchange, it's still $1,000 a month. And I can buy this for ... [$160] on Walmart."

Walmart also gives cash to its employees for any health care expense. The annual payments run from $250 to $1,000 and are given at the beginning of the enrollment year in an account that can only be used for health care expenses.

Walmart individuals face a $2,750 deductible and families need to pay $5,500 under the HRA plan. Individuals pay $1,750 and families pay $3,500 deductibles under the HRA High plan.

The deductibles are high, but Obamacare deductibles are higher, going up to $6,300, according to Todd.

Todd looked at a 30-year-old woman who could qualify for the government subsidy. "The nonsubsidized premium is $205 a month for this 30-year-old. If they get a subsidy, then the premium is zero. But that person has to come up with $6,300 if something catastrophic happened," he said.

The Walmart monthly premium for the same 30-year-old woman would be about $40. Her deductible would be $2,750, minus $250 in cash advance, for a total net deductible of $2,500.

Todd said some Obamacare exchange family plan deductibles can go as high as $12,000 before benefits kick in.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670

Fwd: [New post] Dr. Richard Lindzen on Global Warming: What Catastrophe?




Brent P. posted: "What Catastrophe? MIT's Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist By Ethan Epstein, The Weekly Standard When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate "

New post on therightplanet.com

Dr. Richard Lindzen on Global Warming: What Catastrophe?

by Brent P.

What Catastrophe? MIT's Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist By Ethan Epstein, The Weekly Standard When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate "skeptic," and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change […]

Read more of this post

Brent P. | January 8, 2014 at 5:05 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-bZn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from therightplanet.com.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/01/dr-richard-lindzen-on-global-warming-what-catastrophe/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama's Overreaching Military-Related Amnesty







http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=11002b90be7384b380b467605&id=9ad712dde2&e=b42d279877

 Obama's Overreaching Military-Related Amnesty
An examination of the USCIS parole-in-place policy

 

WASHINGTON, DC (January 8, 2014) — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the administration's most recent exemption of a category of illegal aliens from immigration enforcement. This latest category, created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a November memo, directs immigration officials to grant de facto amnesty, or parole-in-place, to the illegal alien children, spouses, and parents of active military servicemen, reservists, and those who have previously served in the U.S. military.

"The president now routinely disregards the legislative process, preferring executive action as the means of expanding his amnesty agenda.  But this broad amnesty, which according to some advocates could allow tens of thousands of illegal aliens to apply for green cards and citizenship, has far-reaching implications, including security risks and fraud," states Dan Cadman, a research fellow at the Center and author of the report.
 
The amnestying of a whole class of aliens without the consent of Congress violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which states that parole may only be granted "on a case-by-case basis". The administration's action also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to publish policy changes such as this in the Federal Register so the public may review and comment.
 
View the full report at: http://cis.org/USCIS-Parole-in-Place-Policy
 
The broad policy extends beyond its claimed objective of relieving the stress that deployed G.I.s might experience from their family members' immigration status. The amnesty applies even to relatives of a service member who received a less-than-honorable discharge or a reservist who has only served for two weeks or has never served in a hostile theatre of operation. The memo could have limited the application of the policy, but the administration chose to draft an overreaching amnesty rather than adhere to the law of case-by-case application for parole.




__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Gates unloads on Obama






DEFCON Hill feed

January 07, 2014, 06:21 pm

Gates unloads on Obama

By Jeremy Herb and Kristina Wong

Getty Images

President Obama doubted his own troop-surge strategy in Afghanistan would work; Vice President Biden got nearly every security issue wrong for 40 years; and Hillary Clinton opposed President Bush's Iraq surge to help her presidential bid. These are among the blockbuster allegations detonated Tuesday by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Writing in a memoir due out next week, Gates says that Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced" his Afghan surge would fail.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gates also contends that Biden was wrong on "nearly every" major national security and foreign policy issue over the past four decades.

He says former Secretary of State Clinton opposed the surge in Iraq launched by President George W. Bush for political reasons, because it would have been difficult to support during a presidential primary battle in 2008 with then-Sen. Obama. The president himself "vaguely" conceded that his own opposition to the Iraq surge was based in politics, which Gates said he found both surprising and dismaying.

The revelations, included in the forthcoming Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, according to several reports based on early copies of the book, arrive as Obama comes under separate criticism from Capitol Hill Republicans that his administration should be doing more to arm and train an Iraqi military battling a resurgent al Qaeda.

Several GOP lawmakers took umbrage at Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that the battle is now Iraq's to fight, arguing the U.S. needs to do more after investing so much during the Iraq War.

"The president has failed miserably in explaining the threats we face, and Secretary Kerry was completely disappointing when he said this is an Iraqi problem," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday.

Combined, the criticisms were a one-two punch to an administration that has been focused on domestic policy in the new year.

While the administration faces tough decisions on what to do in Iraq, the criticism from Gates over Afghanistan stung more. Not only is it coming from a first-term insider trusted by Obama, it is on an issue closely tied to the president and his legacy.

The White House immediately rebuffed the searing criticism of Biden in a statement from National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden

"From his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate, to his efforts to end the war in Iraq, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time, and has helped advance America's leadership in the world," she said. "President Obama relies on his good counsel every day."

On Afghanistan, Hayden said that differences within the administration had been widely reported over the years, "and it is well known that the president has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war, which will end this year."

"The president deeply appreciates Bob Gates' service as Secretary of Defense and his life," the statement continued. "As has always been the case, the president welcomes differences of view among his national security team, which broaden his options and enhance our policies."

Obama opposed the war in Iraq and argued in his 2008 campaign that Bush should have been focused on Afghanistan. He backed a surge in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan during his first year in office, and the administration is currently in the midst of negotiating a security agreement with the Afghans for a long-term U.S. presence.

Gates wrote that by early 2010, however, he had concluded that Obama "doesn't believe in his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out."

"I never doubted Obama's support for the troops, only his support for their mission," Gates wrote, according to a report in the Washington Post.

In recent weeks, the White House has threatened to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, if Afghan President Hamid Karzai does not sign the bilateral security agreement. The administration wants to keep 8,000-10,000 troops in Afghanistan to train Afghan soldiers.

The "zero option" that is on the table in Afghanistan would follow the path U.S. forces took in Iraq, when the U.S. military withdrew completely in 2011, after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to grant U.S. troops immunity.

Republicans have seized on the Iraq withdrawal as reason to blame for the current violence in Iraq; al Qaeda affiliates retook Fallujah, one of the deadliest battlegrounds during the Iraq War.

"[Obama] oversold before 2012 election the actual state that al Qaeda was in, and now it's clearly obvious to everyone they're on the rise and not on the run," Graham said.

But the White House has forcefully pushed back against those criticisms, all but daring Republicans to come out in support of putting U.S. troops back in Iraq.

"I don't think I've heard members of Congress suggest this, but if members were suggesting that there should be American troops fighting and dying in Fallujah today, they should say so. The president doesn't believe that," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

No Republicans have suggested U.S. troops should return to Iraq, but they argue Obama should have never allowed all U.S. forces to leave in 2011, which they say created a power vacuum.

"Because Obama wanted out, he got out," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of Obama's most vocal foreign policy critics.

McCain said the U.S. needs to quickly ramp up its military support to the Iraqis.

"They need intelligence capabilities; they need more air capabilities; they need more planning capabilities, but most of all, they need Maliki [a Shia] to reach out to the Sunnis and try to have some kind of reconciliation," McCain said.

"If we had stayed, there would have been that reconciliation. Instead, we left, and things went to hell in a hand basket, just as I predicted it would."

Obama's former ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, also said he disagreed with Kerry's statement that al Qaeda's reemergence in Iraq was "not our fight."

"Given the importance of Iraq and given the association of the United States with Iraq, in particular Fallujah, this is our fight," Jeffrey, who served as ambassador from 2010-2012, said in an interview with The Hill.

U.S. military leaders say the resurgence of al Qaeda groups in Iraq is a serious issue and has implications throughout the conflicts in the Middle East.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, who served as commanding general of U.S. and NATO forces in Iraq from 2008-2010, said it was important for the United States to continue working with the Iraqi army on counterinsurgency and to stay politically involved.

In a speech at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Odierno said this "was certainly not" the time to deploy U.S. troops to Iraq, but the U.S. had to "wait and see if it becomes part of our national security interest to put people on the ground."

He said the events in Iraq are part of a larger development across the region, of a Sunni-Shiite struggle that's also taking place in Syria and Lebanon, allowing al Qaeda and other non-state actors to exploit instability.

"The biggest threat to U.S. national security is that this ungoverned territory becomes areas where we have terrorist organizations become dominant and try to export their terrorism outside the Middle East," Odierno said.

Julian Pecquet and Rebecca Shabad contributed.

 



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [New post] Planned Parenthood Board Member Says Abortion Is ‘A Sacred Gift,’ Claims Christianity Is Dying

The Future Mrs. Plain Ol'.....


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:



DCG posted: " Christian News: In recent opinion columns, a Planned Parenthood board member has claimed that abortion is 'a sacred gift,' and that nonbelievers have 'reasons to celebrate' since Christianity is 'in decline.' Valerie Tarico is a member of Planned P"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Planned Parenthood Board Member Says Abortion Is 'A Sacred Gift,' Claims Christianity Is Dying

by DCG

Valerie-Tarico-300x300

Christian News: In recent opinion columns, a Planned Parenthood board member has claimed that abortion is 'a sacred gift,' and that nonbelievers have 'reasons to celebrate' since Christianity is 'in decline.'

Valerie Tarico is a member of Planned Parenthood's Board of Advocates, which—according to the board's website—is a 400-member body of individuals "united by their personal integrity and commitment to the Planned Parenthood mission." Among other responsibilities, Board of Advocates members "writ[e] articles, blog posts, or statements in support of Planned Parenthood."

Tarico, whose writing has appeared in outlets such as Salon, AlterNet, and the Huffington Post, routinely writes about her opposition to Christian beliefs and values. In an opinion piece last June, she wrote, "it's tempting to think that Christian conservatives have reached some new pinnacle of hating women and sexuality."

In a Huffington Post article last January, Tarico claimed that abortion is "a sacred gift." She also encouraged people to "honor women who decide to terminate pregnancies" and "honor doctors who provide abortion services," since they are "doing God's work."

"An abortion when needed is a blessing," Tarico posited. "It is a gift, a grace, a mercy, a cause for gratitude, a new lease on life. Being able to choose when and whether to bring a child into the world enables us and our children to flourish."

In one of Tarico's most recent articles, initially published on AlterNet in late December, she lists ten reasons why she believes that Christianity is "in decline." "Things are looking bright for those who would like to see humanity more grounded in science and reason," Tarico asserts.

The facts Tarico cites to support her claim vary significantly, but they include the secularization of millenials, the increasing outspokenness of skeptics, and the society's departure from Biblical values.

"Today's young women and men are making the Bible writers look as if they were members of a tribal, Iron Age culture in which women were property like livestock and children—to be traded, sold and won in battle," Tarico alleges.

Tarico also claims that Christian denominations are declining in influence due to their "cruelty, bigotry and ignorance."

In response to Tarico's assertions, Matt Barber, a popular author and freelance columnist, wrote in a column for WND that such claims from nonbelievers are nothing new.

"When the atheist gives voice to his or her God-denial," Barber writes, "it provides those in Truth a small glimpse into the same dark spirit—old as Adam—that prompted the psalmist to observe: 'The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good' (Psalm 14:1)."

Barber points out that true freedom cannot be found in human reasoning or atheism, but only in Jesus Christ—as explained in Galatians 5:1.

"Without Christ, there is no freedom," Barber states. "There is only death."

"When God-deniers like Ms. Tarico dig in their heels," he continues, "a pitiable paradox occurs. While they think they've achieved intellectual enlightenment and freedom, they have, instead, been played for the fool. They have become slaves to the flesh, and playthings to the enemy."

"Ultimately," Barber concludes, "there is no autonomy. In the end we each belong to one Master or the other. Ms. Tarico, the end is just the beginning. And eternity is a very long time."

This is sacred: human life!

This is sacred: human life!

DCG

DCG | January 8, 2014 at 3:30 am | Tags: Planned Parenthood | Categories: abortion, Children, Christians/Christianity, God's creation, Insanity | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-oRk

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Fellowship of the Minds.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/01/08/planned-parenthood-board-member-says-abortion-is-a-sacred-gift-claims-christianity-is-dying/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Federal law says you can opt out of Obamacare, nor can you be penalized if you do




Dr. Eowyn posted: "Ever heard of a federal law 42 USC § 18115: Freedom Not to Participate in Federal Health Insurance Programs? I haven't either. But thanks to FOTM's joseph This is how Cornell University Law School's website describes 42 USC § 18115: No individua"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Federal law says you can opt out of Obamacare, nor can you be penalized if you do

by Dr. Eowyn

Ever heard of a federal law 42 USC § 18115: Freedom Not to Participate in Federal Health Insurance Programs?

I haven't either.

But thanks to FOTM's joseph

This is how Cornell University Law School's website describes 42 USC § 18115:

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

The website further explains that the Act referred to in 42 USC § 18115 is Obamacare:

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title and Tables.

42 USC § 18115 refers to:

Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 157 - Quality, Affordable Health Care For All Americans
Subchapter 6 - Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 18115 -

You can see it for yourself by going on the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Law Revision Counsel's website for United States Code.

This is what the U.S. Code website says about 42 USC § 18115:

§18115. Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

(Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1555, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 260.)

References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title and Tables

And here's a screenshot I took from the United States Code page for 42 USC § 18115 (click the enlarge):

42 USC § 18115

In other words, what we've been told about Obamacare -- that every adult American must enroll in a healthcare plan or pay a penalty -- is simply not true.

According to federal law 42 USC § 18115:

  1. No one is required to participate in Obamacare.
  2. You can't be fined or penalized if you decline to participate in Obamacare.

None other than Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida) has confirmed this at an April 5, 2010, town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale: "We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance. Let me explain what we did: What we did is that, just like when you're treated, that we categorize you differently in terms of your tax return when you're married versus single, just like we categorize you differently when you are a homeowner versus someone who doesn't own a home, just like we categorize you differently when you have children versus not having children -- what we are doing is you will be in a different tax status if you carry insurance versus not carrying health insurance. So you can feel free to choose not to carry health insurance. That's just going to be reflected in the tax category that you're in on your tax return. But there is no requirement in this law that you must carry health insurance."

What did Wasserman Schultz meant by if you don't carry health insurance it's "going to be reflected in the tax category that you're in on your tax return"?

Answer: She's referring to an IRS code 26 USC § 5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.

42 USC § 18115 directly contradicts another federal law, the IRS's 26 USC § 5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage, which says:

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

26 USC § 5000A further states that if "an applicable individual" doesn't obtain "minimum essential [health] coverage," he or she "shall be liable" to pay a monthly "penalty" in either a flat dollar amount or as a percentage of one's income (see here).

That's how the deceitful federal government gets around 42 USC § 18115's prohibition against penalizing Americans for not obtaining healthcare coverage -- by calling it a "tax" and siccing the IRS on us.

Bottom line:

There is enough contradiction between two federal laws 42 USC § 18115 vs. 26 USC § 5000A, which should provide employment for an army of lawyers and tie up the courts in litigation and appeals for years.

Let the party begin!

A humongous h/t to FOTM's josephbc69.

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Fellowship of the Minds.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/01/08/federal-law-says-you-can-opt-out-of-obamacare-nor-can-you-be-penalized-if-you-do/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.