New Obama Rule Would Force Pro-Life Doctors To Perform Abortions

So, where are Doug Kmiec and Chris Buckley now? They were pretty vocal about their “conservatives who support Obama” mantra back during the campaign. They especially liked the attention they recieved as a result.

But now, for some reason, these two are very silent when it comes to the issues that they were certain they had nailed down. Doug Kmiec was convinced that Obama would respect the views of the pro-lifers that Kmiec got to vote for Obama.

Kmiec was nothing more than a useful idiot to Obama since Obama has shown nothing but disdain for and disrespect to pro-lifers whom Kmiec convinced would find a new, elevated status if they voted Democrat last November. How so? Obama’s latest proposed rule change would force pro-life medical professionals into performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Tonight at 9:00 p.m., the Andrea King Show will have Dr. Joe DeCook, Vice President of AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Here is what he has to say:

“The administration’s new efforts to overturn the HHS regulation could mandate practices such as abortion or shut down many of the 557 Catholic hospitals around the country that treat millions of US hospital patients.

“Revoking the regulation is the first step in removing a doctor of his or her rights to make a decision based on conscience and as a result placing that decision in the hands of the government. This issue will not only effect faith-based institutions, but could cause a dire situation for the entire medical profession.”

Of course. You can’t have government-run health care if doctors are free to make their own decisions independent of government influence.

The Obama administration has opened the HHS regulation – also known as “conscience clause” – for public comment until April 9, 2009.

You can access this information on-line here:

Andrea King Show

You can send your comments asking the Obama administration not to trample on the beliefs of those medical professionals who hold pro-life views by visiting the following website:

Recently Posted HHS Rules And Notices

Or sending an email to:

proposedrescission@hhs.gov

I’d like to know where Doug Kmiec stands on this issue and if he still stands by his assertion that Obama would somehow be good for the pro-life movement.

Advertisements

Obama Wants Renewed Assault Against Family-Owned Farms And Small Businesses: The Death Tax

One thing you can say about Barack Obama is that he never misses a chance to screw the American people with new taxes. And, although he claims to be the friend of small businesses and family-owned farms, he wants to re-apply the tax that has done more damage to Mom & Pop businesses and small farms than any other tax: The Death Tax.

From Fox News:

For those dying to take advantage of next year’s zero percent federal “death tax,” they may want to kill those plans.

President Obama’s budget keeps the estate tax at its 2009 level, which means the government gets 45 percent of a dead person’s estate valued over $3.5 million dollars or $7 million for a couple.

Republicans argue this tax doesn’t just strike the wealthy.

“It destroys a lot of small businesses and a lot of family farms and ranches in America,” said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

“People who aren’t wealthy, who may have built up value in land over generations and many family farms find themselves in situations where they’ve got to sell the farm in order the pay the taxes,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

In 2001 and 2003, Republicans helped push through President Bush’s tax cuts that lowered the estate tax from 55 percent to 45 percent this year and would have eliminated them next year.

To understand how this works, read the following example:

Suppose a man started his own small business or purchased a farm back in the 50’s or 60’s. He bought property and built up his trade over the years. He bought a house and some land and paid it off over time. When he originally purchased his property, it was a total value of, say, $50,000.

Then he dies in 2009 leaving his business (or farm) and property to his family survivors. Today the business and property (or farmland) is worth over $5,000,000. If the Death Tax was 45%, then his survivors would owe $2,250,000 in taxes as a result. If he left only $20,000 in his bank account, his survivors would have to come up with $2,230,000 to pay off the tax or the government would come in and take everything leaving them with nothing.

What is the family going to do to raise $2,230,000? They sell the business (or farm) and the property, usually to a major corporation who developes the land for commercial or residential use.

The small business or farm is then lost forever, all due to a very unfair tax that the Democrats use to supposedly “stick it” to the rich, but end up sticking it to the middle class instead.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama’s Budget Resurrects ‘Death Tax’
Molly Hennenberg
Fox News
April 1, 2009

NASA Acknowledges ‘Deep Solar Minimum’

It is true that most Americans no longer believe in Anthroprogenic (Man-made) Global Warming. Why? Mostly because of the harsh winter that we just endured and the unusually cool spring we are looking at right now. If greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to make temperatures go up, then why are temperatures going down? That is what people are asking.

But these observations may be showing us just the beginning of things to come. Most legitimate scientists (i.e. those scientists who are not on someone’s political payroll) are coming to the conclusion that climate change, whether it be warming or cooling, is driven by our sun. NASA has recently lent it’s support to that position by acknowledging the possibility of a “deep solar minimum.”

What that means is that our sun has slipped into a period of decreased activity and decreased solar energy output.

From Science@NASA:

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

And to show what that means graphically:

ssn_predict_l

Sunspot counts are clearly at a minimum and that means decreased solar energy output as evidenced by the solar irradiance measurement:

irradiance

NASA scientists admit that they do not know what will happen next. But it is clear that the sunspot cycle and the solar irradience cycle are more closely tied to global temperature change than any greenhouse gas emissions are. We know this because thanks to the efforts of China and India, greenhouse gas emissions have increased over the years, but global temperature has gone down, not up.

Other effects:

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.

A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” Satellites in low Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. Unfortunately, space junk also remains longer in Earth orbit, increasing hazards to spacecraft and satellites.

Also, if those sunspots don’t return and solar energy output does not increase, we will be in for some very cold times ahead.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Deep Solar Minimum
Dr. Tony Phillips
Science@NASA
April 1, 2009