Archive for March 17th, 2010

Girl Scouts, as Young as 10, Taught How to be ‘Hot’ and Encouraged to Have Sex

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

This is just sick…

A new campaign by the Girl Scouts, with the help of Planned Parenthood, is offering girls ages 10 to 14 the inside details on how to be “hot.”

This week, the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides held a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations in which Planned Parenthood distributed a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.”

The distribution happened at the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which featured events for the “Girl Scouts and Girl Guides.” In the United States, the organization is called Girls Scouts of the USA and promotes the traditional promise of “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country, to help people at all times, and to live by the Girl Scout Law.”

The organization, however, effectively has eliminated “God” from the equation by providing that, “The word ‘God’ can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one’s spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is acceptable to replace the word ‘God’ with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.”

The brochure targets young people and contains graphic details on sex. It also encourages casual sex in many forms.

“Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”

The international organization boasts it reaches 10 million girls in 145 countries. And not only does it provide suggestions for promiscuous sex, it also defines as acceptable sex while high or drunk.

“Some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice. Being drunk or high can affect the decisions you might make about sex or safer sex,” the brochure states.

So what to do?

“Plan ahead by bringing condoms and lube or putting them close to where you usually have sex.”

The brochure also tells students that laws requiring HIV-positive people to disclose their status to a partner “violate the rights of people living with HIV” and calls for advocacy to “change laws that violate your rights.”

The brochure explains to the young girls, “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. … They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage or having sex with people of the same gender.”

The New York Times reported that the U.N. Population Fund had co-sponsored a controversial curriculum with UNESCO that taught children as young as five to be sexually active and trained adolescents to advocate for abortion.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, told the Friday Fax, “Governments and NGOs should be aware of Planned Parenthood’s insidious plan to work with U.N. agencies and girls’ organizations in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active.”

Original Link.

“Will the Democrats “Self Execute” on Healthcare Reform?” by Newt Gingrich

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

From an email I received:

Will the Democrats “Self Execute” on Healthcare Reform?

Last year, the Democrats passed the stimulus bill without reading it.

This year, they are trying to pass the healthcare bill without voting on it.

Yes, you read that correctly.

In the next few days, Nancy Pelosi will enact a rules change that essentially says if one bill passes the House with certain fixes to the Senate healthcare bill, then the original Senate bill will also have been “deemed” passed by the House through a “self executing rule.”

The reason, straight from Speaker Pelosi’s mouth, is simple: “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.”

If this doesn’t make much sense, it is probably because some overly idealistic civics teacher once taught you that the Constitution requires that before a bill can be “presented to the President of the United States” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

You can learn more about the Democrats latest bizarre tactic and Republican efforts to block it here, but frankly, in terms of whether this bill will ultimately pass or fail, the Democrats’ latest mockery of the Constitution is secondary.

What is most important is this: no matter what Nancy Pelosi is trying to tell the nervous members of her caucus, there is nothing that can shield Democrats from having to make a “yes or no” decision on whether the Senate’s healthcare bill will be signed into law.

Yes Means Yes (and No Democrat Can Deny It)

Whatever Rube Goldberg legislative device the Democrats end up using to try and pass the healthcare bill, the bottom line is that there will be a vote.

During that vote, every member of Congress will have to go on the record as to whether the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill will be sent to the President for signature.

And once the bill is signed by President Obama, the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill will become the law of the land. There is no guarantee the “fixes” to the bill the House wants will ever pass the Senate.

This means that every Democrat that voted for the bill will have to defend:

* Federal funding for abortion;
* A half trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare services that do not fix the programs’ long-term structural budgetary problems;
* A half trillion dollars in new taxes that will be passed on to the consumers of health insurance and everyday medical devices;
* The “Louisiana Purchase” and other special deals used to bribe senators to vote for the bill.
* 159 new government boards, bureaucracies, and programs that will further depress a health system already mired in bureaucracy.

Any Democrat who votes yes and claims their vote didn’t mean yes is doing double damage to their political lives: making a bad bill the law of the land and then lying about their complicity in letting it happen.

Why “Self Executing” Is the Right Term

A recent poll by Independent Women’s Voice in 35 swing districts illustrates the danger this bill poses to the Democrats’ political lives.

In these districts:

* 61% would be less supportive and 29% more supportive of a member of Congress who previously voted AGAINST the bill and then voted FOR it.
* 49% would be more supportive and 40% less supportive of a member of Congress who previously voted FOR the bill and then voted AGAINST it.
* 58% percent would be more supportive and 34% less supportive of a member of Congress who previously voted AGAINST the bill and again voted AGAINST it.

The results are clear. Vote no and the people back home will thank you. Vote yes and spend the rest of the year being repudiated by your constituents.

For House Democrats, voting to make this bill law is indeed an act of “self execution.”

Why don’t you call your Congressman now and make that clear?

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Under Obama Plan, Health Premiums Would Rise

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

This is what we have to look forward to. Are we seriously going to let the Democrats get away with this?

WASHINGTON — Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don’t look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that’s how it works.

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

“You’ll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool,” Obama said. “And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting. That’s money out of pocket.”

And that’s not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

“Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent,” said the president, “which means they could give you a raise.”

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

“There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. “There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today.”

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

But the analysis didn’t consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It’s unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they’d reach without the legislation. That’s mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy “comparable” coverage to what they have today.

But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

“People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now,” said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. “If they did buy the same value plans … the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure.”

Original Link.

“Texas Kicks Out Liberal Bias From Textbooks” by Phyllis Schlafly

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

“Don’t Mess With Texas” is a popular slogan in our most prosperous state. By a 10-to-five margin, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) just told liberals to stop “messing” with social studies textbooks.

For years, liberals have imposed their revisionist history on our nation’s public school students, expunging important facts and historic figures while loading the textbooks with liberal propaganda, distortions and cliches. It’s easy to get a quick lesson in the virulent left-wing bias by checking the index and noting how textbooks treat President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

When parents object to left-wing inclusions and omissions, claiming they should have something to say about what their own children are being taught and how their taxpayers’ money is spent, they are usually vilified as “book burners” and belittled as uneducated primitives who should allow the “experts” to decide. The self-identified “experts” are alumni of liberal teachers colleges and/or members of a left-wing teachers union.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state’s board of education, department of education and curriculum committees. Texas is different — the Texas State Board of Education is elected, and the people (even including parents!) have a voice.

Texas is uniquely important in textbook content because the state of Texas is the largest single purchaser of textbooks. Publishers can hardly afford to print different versions for other states, so Texas curriculum standards have nationwide influence.

The review of social studies curriculum (covering U.S. government, American history, world history and economics) comes up every 10 years, and 2010 is one of those years. The unelected education “experts” proposed their history revisions, such as eliminating Independence Day, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Edison, Daniel Boone and Neil Armstrong, and replacing Christmas with Diwali.

After a public outcry, the SBOE responded with common-sense improvements. Thomas Edison, the world’s greatest inventor, will be again included in the narrative of American history.

Schoolchildren will no longer be misled into believing that capitalism and the free market are dirty words and that America has an unjust economic system. Instead, they will learn how the free-enterprise system gave our nation and the world so much that is good for so many people.

Liberals don’t like the concept of American exceptionalism. The liberals want to teach what’s wrong with America (masquerading under the code word “social justice”) instead of what’s right and successful. The SBOE voted to include describing how American exceptionalism is based on values that are unique and different from those of other nations.

The SBOE specified that teaching about the Bill of Rights should include a reference to the right to keep and bear arms. Some school curricula pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist.

Read the rest of the article here.