Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (645513)	2/15/2012 1:34:59 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1574103

Now Planned Parenthood bullies Catholic food bank for saying no to them by Susan Michelle Wed Feb 15, 2012 lifesitenews.com One thing we learned from the Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco is that it may be easier to say no to the mob than Planned Parenthood. We saw it again recently in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This one didn’t make much news, but created a local social network bully fest. Planned Parenthood called Paul’s Pantry, part of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the biggest food pantry in Wisconsin, and asked them to come and pick up donations, which may have been noble, but wasn’t something the Catholic organization felt comfortable doing — sending a truck over and perhaps giving the abortion provider a photo opportunity. The American Life League reports what the worker at the pantry said: All I told the young lady from Planned Parenthood was that I couldn’t send a truck to pick up, and gave her a list of other food pantries that might want to pick up, I gave her no reason at all and she didn’t ask why. Soon after, I started receiving the hate e-mail and phone calls. I politely explained to callers that although we are non-denominational in regards to those we serve, we are a Catholic organization who shares a board of directors with our sister organization, St. Vincent de Paul. We adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and to the Rule of St. Vincent de Paul. I also explained our Gift Acceptance Policy and how acceptance of the donation would compromise our core values and possibly damage the reputation of Paul’s Pantry. As with Komen, choice wasn’t okay with Planned Parenthood, and within a short amount of time, verbal abuse rolled in. Jill Stanek reports that a worker at Paul’s Pantry explained: “Within 20 minutes I was getting phone calls and emails calling us [names]. The calls that day came from the Milwaukee area, where Planned Parenthood is headquartered. We have caller ID.” [He] said he did tell one of the callers they could simply drop off their donation, “which happens about 100 times a day – in that case we don’t know where the food comes from. But if an organization wants a receipt, Paul’s Pantry has a gift acceptance policy. “If the donation is going to hurt us, we don’t accept it.” Craig said it never got to that point with Planned Parenthood, though. PP invented the rest of the story. “What was their purpose?” asked Paul. “If they really intended to feed the poor they should have just dropped the food off and left it at that. But was it for their own self-promotion?” The abuse didn’t stop there, though. First, Planned Parenthood broadcast it to their Facebook page on February 2: Then Daily Kos got in on the action and bashed the pantry, then listed the phone number and the employee names and told people to call in protest. I am linking this story here for attribution but I will warn you ahead of time, there’s some language you may not wish to see. From the Daily Kos: Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin facebook page is reporting that Paul’s Pantry of Green Bay, WI refused to accept donated food from it’s office. Apparently, Paul’s Pantry’s current needy guests would refuse food from abortion providers for fear that the food may contain fetuses. The world has gone insane, but methinks I know why this topic is coming up now. It’s ‘squirrel’ politics time again. I refer to squirrel politics as the distraction from the real problem. I believe that the Republicans, especially Rove and co, know they are on a loser this year. And they want to make Planned Parenthood the cause celeb this year, something to gin up their base with and avoid talking about eliminating medicare and social security. Still…..... That doesn’t mean we have to avoid the battle, just means we have to do it with a reasoned and strong response. Like, calling these [insert expletive] (Followed by contact information for Paul’s Pantry). It’s stunning how Planned Parenthood is all about having a choice until that choice bothers them. When the choice is against them they (along with their allies) become verbal abusers, broadcast it through social networking and make life a misery for the person who refused them. They act like spoiled brats who don’t get their way. Worse yet, they behave hypocritically. Planned Parenthood and their advocates accuse every pro-lifer who comes against them of being politically motivated and condemns them for using politics to infringe upon the rights of women, just as it did in the Komen situation. Curiously, though, the same Facebook post included this follow up comment by Planned Parenthood: And the truth is, everyone knows Planned Parenthood is all about politics. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported: Planned Parenthood is deeply involved in partisan political activity. According to opensecrets.org, Planned Parenthood’s political action committee (PAC) has distributed $93,403 in campaign contributions to federal candidates so far in the 2012 election cycle. The entire pot has gone to Democrats, with the exception of two checks for $137 each to Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Rounding this category of spending to the nearest percent, the PAC has given 100% of its money to Democrats. It’s no fluke. In 2010 the PAC gave $264,986 to federal candidates and 99% of that total went to Democrats, according to opensecrets.org. In 2008, the figure was 98%. Though it might hardly have seemed possible in 2008, the PAC has become more partisan in recent years. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood also lobbies heavily to influence federal legislation, in part because a large portion of its funding comes from government. The group spent close to $2 million in lobbying in 2011. It’s a curious thing why it’s okay for Planned Parenthood to be as politically affiliated as it wants and turn its quest to kill as many babies as possible for profit into political alliances, but when pro-life organizations say no to them they go full-on thug with the media and calls and name calling. The point here isn’t whether Paul’s Pantry took or didn’t take the food; the point is it’s their own choice what they want to do. Planned Parenthood, contrary to its apparent self opinion, does not get to make decisions for the other organizations in the nation just because it doesn’t like what they do. Until we as a people unite and speak up as they do they will continue to walk all over anyone who disagrees with them. At Planned Parenthood choice is only for those who agree with them.

To: longnshort who wrote (645513)	2/15/2012 3:07:25 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574103

OUTRAGE: Feds Settle with Illegal Aliens in CT Give Them $350k and Amnesty By John Hill on February 15, 2012 standwitharizona.com The inmates are running the asylum. This Administration has served notice on every illegal alien invader across America: do not be afraid – you are above the law. Eleven illegal aliens who claimed ICE agents “violated their rights” in 2007 raids on their New Haven neighborhood have won a $350,000 settlement from the U.S. government, which also agreed to halt deportation proceedings against the plaintiffs, their attorneys said Tuesday. New Haven is American’s most notorious “sanctuary city”- the first in the nation to offer identification cards to illegal immigrants, and critics including the mayor have contended the federal sweep was retaliation for the ID program — a charge denied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying planning for the raid began the year before. The settlement appears to be the largest ever paid by the United States in a lawsuit over residential immigration raids, and the first to include compensation as well as immigration relief, according to Mark Pedulla, a Yale law student who was involved in representing the plaintiffs. “*They hope to be able to offer an example of what can happen when you stand up for your rights*,” Pedulla said. “Rights”? These are foreign nationals, residing in the United States in violation of Federal immigration laws. They have the “right” to be detained and deported. Ross Feinstein, an ICE spokesman, said the settlement is not intended as an admission of liability on the part of the U.S. government. “*The government is settling in order to avoid the additional time and expense of further litigation*,” Feinstein said. When does the Federal government EVER do that? The Feds have unlimited legal resources. The Bush Administration fought this case tooth and nail on behalf of ICE and the DOJ. It is obvious that the Obama crowd wanted to send a message with this “settlement” and amnesty: illegals aliens are a new “protected class”, and that only the illegals they deem unwelcome, will be prosecuted. the rest may stay. Here is the backstory of what happened in 2007: The plaintiffs were among roughly 30 people arrested on the raid in the early morning hours of June 6, 2007. The men argued the agents drew their weapons, forced them out of bed and *frightened young children* in some of the homes. They claimed the federal agency was retaliating against New Haven, which has a reputation as a “sanctuary city” for its embrace of illegal immigrants, and that they were targeted solely because of their Latino appearance. “I remember everything that happened to me that morning as if it were yesterday,” plaintiff Edinson Yangua Calva said. “There are things I haven’t been able to get over, it is something that stays with you forever.” If I commit a crime, and am arrested in my home, am I absolved of that crime if law enforcement agents “frighten” my children? This is the theater of the absurd. In June 2009, federal Immigration Judge Michael Straus ruled that agents *violated the constitutional rights* of four immigrants in the raids. Straus said the ICE agents went into the immigrants’ homes without warrants, probable cause or their consent, and he put a stop to deportation proceedings against the four defendants, whose names were not released. Five of the plaintiffs were still facing deportation proceedings, but those will be halted as part of the settlement agreement, Pedulla said. So why didn’t the government appeal this ruling? After all the 8th Circuit Appeals Court just last month ruled that illegal aliens do not have the legal right to bear arms because of their criminal invader status. And immigration judges are not like other Federal judges, and can actually be overruled by the Justice Department. No such action was taken here because the Obama DOJ wants to grant amnesty to as many illegals as possible, and reward sanctuary cities for thei lawlessness. New Haven is the biggest sanctuary city in the U.S. Remember our post in December regarding New Haven Mayor John DeStefano’s plan to extend voting rights to illegal aliens - a clear violation of the 15th Amendment. He also has prohibited police from asking people about their immigration status and spoken out against Secure Communities, which uses fingerprints collected in local jails to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested. But instead of suing cities like New Haven (and San Francisco, and Cook County, IL, etc) for violating Federal immigration law, this Administration is instead suing states like Arizona and Alabama for enforcing those laws. Share this story with everyone you know (using the links at top) to demonstrate loud and clear – to any friends and family who are on the fence regarding the 2012 election – how this Administration is hell-bent on executing the lawless, La Raza agenda.

To: longnshort who wrote (645513)	2/15/2012 4:06:15 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574103

OMB director undercuts legal case for Obamacare 2/15/12 \| Philip Klein http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/omb-director-undercuts-legal-case-obamacare/376561 Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court. In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not. Snip Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax.