It’s 1943 and you find yourself in Germany. A Nazi officer is pointing a gun at you and demanding that you hop on a bulldozer and use it to bury hundreds of Jewish families who have been shot and are piled up in a huge pit. But among the dead are some individuals who are still living, crying out for mercy. What would you do, knowing that if you refuse to bury these people alive you will be gunned down yourself?
This is one of the thought-provoking questions that noted Christian apologist Ray Comfort asks a group of “pro-choice” individuals in the new online video 180, a movie that many in the pro-life movement argue is poised to radically change the debate about abortion.
In the movie, Comfort subtly juxtaposes the Hitler-led horror known as the Holocaust — which, by some accounts, stole the lives of more than six million Jews — with America’s own abortion holocaust, that, conservatively, has claimed the lives of over 53 million unborn babies over the past 38 years.
The responses of the “pro-choice” individuals to the bulldozer question are varied. “I don’t know,” responds one lady with emotion.
I have a theory about the canary in the coal mine. I expect that before it died of asphyxiation, it would panic and chirp loudly and vigorously at the prospect of its coming demise. It would then fall silent, and pass out, and its change in behavior would warn the miners that the air in the mine had become foul.
The use of canaries in coal mines to warn miners of the danger of accumulating noxious vapors is not just an "old wives' tale." As recently as the 1980s, miners in the UK used the birds to warn of danger. The practice was described by the BBC, which noted that, beginning in 1911, tradition held that two canaries should be "employed by each pit."
The canaries served to warn miners of danger until 1986 when the British government decided to replace them with modern electronic equipment, to the disappointment of the miners. But until that time, the canaries kept the miners safe, changes in their behavior warning of the coming of danger.
Today, in America, the canary in the political coal mine is panicking, and like the miners of old, we should take heed.
Afghan “President” Hamid Karzai, who rose to power with massive U.S. assistance, promised that the regime ruling Afghanistan would support the Pakistani government if a war broke out between America and Pakistan.
"God forbid, if ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan," Karzai said during an interview with Pakistan’s Geo television. "If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needs Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you."
Other governments such as India (population: 1.2 billion) would also face the wrath of Afghanistan’s pitiful military if they decided to wage war. “Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan,” insisted Karzai, who clings to power in Kabul largely because of the U.S.-led occupation of the nation. “Afghanistan will never betray its brother.”
After news of Karzai’s remarks swept through the Western media, a spokesman for the presidential palace claimed the statements were taken out of context. "Pakistani media has misinterpreted it. They only showed the first part when the president says Afghanistan will back Pakistan if there is a war," the official insisted, claiming Karzai was talking about his regime’s willingness to accept Pakistani refugees if needed.
When it comes to healthcare, said Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick, “the decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” With healthcare costs rising and Medicaid enrollment growing — and slated to increase by another 16 million beginning in 2014 — Americans are already getting an eye-opening experience in what such rationing will look like.
According to two recent USA Today articles by Phil Galewitz of Kaiser Health News, several states, feeling the pinch of increased Medicaid enrollment and the end of federal “stimulus” spending, “are pushing Medicaid recipients into managed-care plans run by private insurers, cutting reimbursement rates to hospitals and doctors and reducing benefits.” In short, they’re rationing care.
How can this be when government-run healthcare is touted as protecting Americans from money-grubbing private insurers who would deny them necessary treatment? Galewitz explains:
The new federal health law requires states to maintain Medicaid eligibility and enrollment standards until 2014, when the expansion begins to add 16 million Americans to the program. States are still free, however, to cut optional benefits, which include drugs, vision care and visits to certain providers such as chiropractors and podiatrists.
An investigation by the Labor Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has confirmed that more than seven million dollars in federal stimulus money went to an Oregon forestry project that generated not a single U.S. job. Instead, precisely $7,140,782 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), President Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan, was siphoned off to four Oregon forestry services to pay wages for 254 foreign workers.
In 2009, when the program’s contracts were approved, Oregon was home to the nation’s third-highest unemployment rate (11.1 percent), with joblessness in many rural areas surpassing 15 percent. In addressing the state’s economic woes, the Obama administration said that the funds were aimed to produce hundreds of forest clean-up jobs in central Oregon. But despite severe job shortages, contractors professed that they wrestled to attract local workers in the area, and did so "unsuccessfully." However, the OIG reported:
Only two Oregonians were listed on the employer recruitment reports, indicating that workers in Oregon were likely unaware these job opportunities were available. In fact, although 146 U.S. workers were contacted by the three employers regarding possible employment, none were [sic] hired. Instead, 254 foreign workers were brought into the country for these jobs.
In an effort to examine the Occupy Wall Street crowd’s complaint about income inequality, economist Mark Perry has concluded that people with higher incomes work harder and longer than those who don't.
A quick perusal of Perry’s graph based on the Census Bureau’s data illustrates the following reasonable conclusions: Households with high incomes have more people working full time, they’re in their peak earning years, they’re married and college-educated. On the other hand, households at the opposite end of the spectrum have fewer people working, more likely to be single and less-well educated, and less likely to be in their peak earning years.
Current data from the Census Bureau show the following:
The Nullify Now! tour sponsored by the Tenth Amendment Center has gained momentum since its inception last year and has effectively brought states rights to the forefront of political discussion amongst conservative groups. This past weekend, the tour made its way to Jacksonville, Florida, where state sovereignty was highlighted and asserted to be the last best hope against a federal government operating in an unconstitutional manner.
The all-day event at the Jacksonville Riverfront Omni Hotel, attended by approximately 250 people, featured an informative agenda and prominent experts on the subjects of constitutionalism and nullification.
The Tenth Amendment Center’s Francisco Rodriguez told The New American, “We were glad to see a broad array of people interested in these subjects, ranging from monetary policy to Agenda 21. There was a good response overall.”
Rodriguez also discussed his excitement at the launch of the Tenth Amendment committees, which he describes as “groups within groups” whose goal “is to get people engaged after the event, providing them educational classes on the constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and nullification.” Rodriguez added that his group is “looking forward to the committees being a big success.”
Back in August, when Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history, from AAA to AA+, the Obama administration was disgruntled and fearful of how such a move would impact economic growth. Once the initial shock of the maneuver passed, however, Washington returned to its business-as-usual mentality. Now, however, it seems that this period will be short-lived, as another downgrade is expected.
According to Bank of America/Merrill Lynch’s Ethan Harris:
We expect a moderate slowdown in the beginning of next year, as two small policy shocks — another debt downgrade and fiscal tightening — hit the economy. The “not-so-super” Deficit Commission is very unlikely to come up with a credible deficit-reduction plan. The committee is more divided than the overall Congress. Since the fall-back plan is sharp cuts in discretionary spending, the whole point of the Committee is to put taxes and entitlements on the table. However, all the Republican members have signed the Norquist “no taxes” pledge and with taxes off the table it is hard to imagine the liberal Democrats on the Committee agreeing to significant entitlement cuts.
The credit rating agencies have strongly suggested that further rating cuts are likely if Congress does not come up with a credible long-run plan. Hence, we expect at least one credit downgrade in late November or early December when the super Committee crashes.
Citigroup has agreed to pay $285 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex mortgage investments just as the housing market was starting to collapse. The Securities and Exchange Commission brought forth the civil action against Citigroup, claiming that investors who bought into the deal (which involved, essentially, stuffing portfolios with risky mortgage — related investments, selling it to unsuspecting customers, and then betting against those investments) had been defrauded. The transaction involved a one-billion dollar portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value. The SEC says that as investors lost millions, Citigroup made $160 million in fees and profits.
Citigroup neither admitted nor denied the SEC's allegations in the settlement. "We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly," Citigroup said in a statement.
The penalty is the largest involving a Wall Street firm accused of misleading investors before the financial crisis since Goldman Sachs & Co. paid $550 million to settle similar charges last year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. resolved similar charges in June and paid $153.6 million.
The SEC on Wednesday also brought a case against Credit Suisse, which played a smaller role in the transaction, and against one individual at each company.
If Congress fails to pass President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act, “murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise,” Vice President Joe Biden told a reporter from Human Events on October 19. This was in keeping with a theme that Biden has been using lately: Because the bill would help keep state and local governments from laying off police officers, and because fewer cops on the beat mean increased crime, to oppose the bill is to favor more crime.
To those who doubt “whether there’s a direct correlation between the reduction in cops and firefighters and the rise in concerns in public safety,” Biden said during an October 18 appearance in Flint, Michigan, “they need look no further than your city.” He continued:
Let’s look at the facts: in 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories— climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields.
The next day Biden asserted that in Flint “murder rates have doubled in the last year” and “rape was up, three times.” Then he challenged scoffers to “go look at the numbers.”
Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” has done precisely that; and the numbers he found just don’t add up to the soaring totals that the Vice President cited.