Sunday, January 1, 2017

John Kerry’s practiced betrayal of friends

Washington Times | 29 Dec, 2016 | Wesley Pruden 

John Kerry doesn’t come late to the betrayal of friends. He has had considerable practice. In 1971, when he was a young lieutenant just back from Vietnam, where he was a decorated skipper of a Swift Boat patrolling the Mekong River, he appeared before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pay his “respects” to the American soldiers, sailors and Marines he fought a war with.
Representing all those veterans, he told the senators, he wanted to talk about war crimes he said “were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” Mr. Kerry proceeded to slander and defame hundreds of thousands of young Americans who were serving at their country’s call in a distant place where none wanted to be, doing their best at achieving the impossible.
Most of us who were there as observers and witnesses — I spent the better part of three years in Vietnam and Southeast Asia as a newspaper correspondent — saw ugly anger at work, the brutal way of war since Cain picked up a stone to slay his brother Abel. Occasional violence verged on atrocity, but we saw kindness and mercy in the midst of the noisy clangor of killing.
Mr. Kerry testified that he saw his country only at the work of atrocity, young men, many of them highly decorated, merciless in pursuit of barbarism. He told of swapping war stories with men who “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam ....”

Court strikes down harmful transgender mandate

Ruling protects children and doctors, hospitals from federal regulation!

For Immediate Release: December 31, 2016
Media Contact: Melinda Skea | | 202-349-7224

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago a Texas court protected the rights of families and their doctors to make medical decisions for their child free from government bureaucrats’ interference.
The court ruling comes after eight states, an association of almost 18,000 doctors, and a Catholic hospital system challenged a federal regulation that requires doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor believes the treatment could harm the child. Doctors who followed their Hippocratic Oath to act in the best interest of their patient would have faced severe consequences, including losing their job.
“This is a common-sense ruling: The government has no business forcing private doctors to perform procedures that the government itself recognizes can be harmful, particularly to children, and that the government exempts its own doctors from performing,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket Law, which filed a lawsuit against the new federal regulation. “Today’s ruling ensures that doctors’ best medical judgment will not be replaced with political agendas and bureaucratic interference.”                   
The new regulation applied to over 900,000 doctors—nearly every doctor in the U.S.—and would have cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion. The government itself does not require its own military doctors to perform these procedures. It also does not require blanket coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid—even in adults—because HHS’s experts admitted research is “‘inconclusive’ on whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes,” with some studies demonstrating that these procedures were actually harmful. But a doctor citing the same evidence and using their best medical judgment would have faced potential lawsuits or job loss.
 A recent website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on, demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy leaves without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens.
“This court ruling is an across-the-board victory that will ensure that deeply personal medical decisions, such as gender transition procedures, remain between families and their doctor,” said Windham.
Becket Law defended Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations from the new government regulation. The States of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Mississippi joined Becket’s legal challenge. More information can be found at
For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at or 202-349-7224.  Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.
Additional Information:

Buffalo School Board Demanding Resignation After ‘Racist’ Remarks Made About Obamas ^ | December 31, 2016 | Dave Jolly 

Have you ever noticed that the people who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of all? These individuals are extremely hypocritical in what they do and say and their treatment of others.
Members of the LGBT community preach and push for tolerance and acceptance, but they refuse to be tolerant of those that disagree with their life style. It’s okay for homosexuals to say anything they want, no matter how derogatory it is, against straight people. Yet, whenever someone says that homosexuality is a sin, they are labeled as a homophobe and a hater.
An atheist can say the most blasphemous things about God, Jesus, the Bible, Christianity and Christians without any consequences. It’s considered their right of free speech. Yet let a Christian say anything against an atheist or Muslim, it’s no longer considered free speech but hate language and a possible crime.
Every day we see and hear black activist saying some of the most horrible, filthy and derogatory things about white people, but when a white person says anything about a black, it’s racist and not tolerated. While the black person is praised for her/her words, the white person is persecuted to the point of being fired from his/her job and shamed in all aspects of life.
One of the latest examples of racist hypocrisy is being displayed in Buffalo, New York.
Carl Paladino is a member of the Buffalo School Board and he is being persecuted for speaking his feelings about Barack and Michelle Obama. Oh yeah, Paladino is also a white supporter of Donald Trump.
In a recent interview, Paladino expressed his wish to see Barack Obama die from mad cow disease. Additionally, he expressed his wish for Michelle Obama, saying she should:
“…return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.”
While I agree that Paladino’s comments were not appropriate, I do believe that he had every right to express them since the First Amendment right to free speech is still part of the US Constitution.
Compare Paladino’s comments to those made by some black activists who use the “F” word frequently when referring to whites. The New Black Panthers placed a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, dead or alive and called for the murder of police officers after what happened in Ferguson, Missouri. They posted ‘off the pigs’ in calling for the murder of police officers regardless of their sex or color of skin. No one condemned them for their racist and hate filled words or for their trying to inspire the lawless murder of an individual and law enforcement personnel. But don’t forget that prior to his election to the White House, Obama marched with the New Black Panthers.
If you watch any of the disgusting television programs featuring blacks, they use very hateful and racist remarks about whites and police, but no one complains or dare speak out against them. Even worse is heard on the silver screen and again, it’s not considered racist or hateful. But if a white person says or does anything half as bad, everyone is up in arms and demanding for that person’s head on a spit.
Paladino is under fire from other members of the Buffalo School Board over his remarks about the Obamas. They have demanded his resignation and gave him 24 hours to submit it. If he refuses, which he has so far, the other school board members say they will take their case to the state education commissioner and ask him to remove Paladino from the school board. Paladino says he is not a racist and his comments were not intended to be racist, therefore he has no intention of resigning.
Like I said, I don’t condone Paladino’s remarks, or his expressing them publicly, but I do condemn those who are in such a snit over those remarks. Many blacks say far worse and remain in their public positions without any consequences. As long as the First Amendment remains as part of the Constitution, anyone should be free to express their feelings without fear of retribution.
If Paladino is forced off the school board, then Obama should have been forced out of the White House for some of his racist remarks about Trump and other whites. Al Sharpton should have been driven from his organization for his many racist remarks about whites, and the list of guilty blacks goes on and on. As long as this kind of racial hypocrisy continues in America, there will always be a racial division in our nation, most of which is perpetuated by the racist blacks themselves.

Obama’s Failed Presidency (By Former Lifelong Democrat)

Stragegic Culture ^ | 12-31-2016 | Eric ZUESSE 

I’m a former lifelong Democrat, stating here a clear and incontestable fact: Barack Obama is a failed President.

It’s true not just because of the sad realities such as that «Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94 % Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time» — or, as the economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz wrote in the original of that study: «94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements». («Alternative work arrangements» referred there to Americans who were involuntarily working only part-time jobs — they simply couldn’t find full-time, though that’s what they wanted.) In other words: Obama’s failure isn’t just because of America’s increasingly sales-clerk, and burger-flipping, workforce.
And Obama’s failure is also not just because «Poverty Rose In 96 % Of U.S. House Districts, During Obama’s Presidency». (However, that reality turned out to be decisive in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8th, as Nate Cohn pointed out in The New York Times on December 23rd, headlining, «How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump». Hillary was running on Obama’s poor record.)
Obama’s failure is also because of other important reasons. Among them is the uncounted thousands of people who were killed in, and the uncounted millions of people who became refugees from, the places where Obama (or else his installed regimes) bombed and caused the residents to either die or flee. George W. Bush’s destructions of Iraq and even Afghanistan were now being followed by the destructions of Libya by Obama and Sarkozy, and of Syria by Obama and Saud and Thani and Erdogan, who armed the tens of thousands of jihadists and sent them into Syria to overthrow
(Excerpt) Read more at ...