Racist Obama announce Blacks for Obama Campaign smoothly…..racially….divisively…..unabashedly

I cannot think of a president who has so intentionally violated so many American traditions than the Marxist  Barack Obama.   Deviously, dishonestly, disingenuously,  he leads America ‘from behind’ as he snippily bragged.

Please view his announcement to further DIVIDE  the electorate, not only by class,  sex, but officially race.   

Jimmy Earl Carter might have been among the worst of our presidents, but he was, at least an American and at least when president ,did not nudge racist or class warfare.   

Mr. Obama has joined the NAACP as a strident, shrill racist movement…..but  speaks divisively more as the nation’s enemy that one interested in solving the nation’s leadership, moral, and economic ills.

Click below for the racist president’s call for black unity for the incompetent president, Obama:

Video sent by Bruce Taber.

 

 

Battle against DNA Registering in Minnesota not over yet?

 

 

 

CCHF BABY DNA ALERT – MN

The MN Department of Health (MDH) wants the legislature to undo parts of the Baby DNA ruling issued by the MN Supreme Court last November. Thus far, Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom has successfully opposed the MDH language. It’s never made it out of any committee. I testified against it in the Senate and it was laid over. But now, a revised version is re-emerging and another MDH bill was just introduced, which dares to say “biological specimens” (blood, tissue, etc.) are not “genetic information” and thus not under the genetic privacy law protections.  

It looks like a last-minute bill may pass this session. Your help is needed now to help us make sure the RIGHT bill passes if one does. NOTE: CCHF would support a bill that allows MDH to do only the newborn screening test. 

There are four specific things I’d like you to ask your legislators to do:

1. LIMIT the Minnesota Department of Health to newborn screening only – just the testing process.
2. PROHIBIT government storage of Baby DNA and government studies or research using Baby DNA.
3. OPPOSE any changes to the MN genetic privacy law, and any attempt to exempt the MN newborn screening law from compliance with the MN genetic privacy law.
4. OPPOSE HF 3025(Kahn) which exempts “biological specimens” from the definition of “genetic information.”

To find your legislators, click here.  

If you already know their name email them direct:

SENATE: sen.firstname.lastname@senate.mn

HOUSE: rep.firstname.lastname@house.mn

 

When a bill is MOVING toward a vote, expect another CCHF alert! 

If you want more information, our rationale, a list of risks related to storage and research and other links, please continue reading below.

Thank you in advance for your assistance on this critical issue!

Twila Brase, RN, PHN

President

Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom

651-646-8935

www.itsmydna.org

———————————————————

Rational for the Above:

 

The language of a bill should PROHIBIT MDH storage and research because in the future, MDH would have to REPEAL the prohibition to store and use Baby DNA. A repeal is more difficult to hide and more politically difficult to vote for.

Also, new and exhausted parents should not be burdened with the arduous task of researching the risks of signing the consent form for MDH storage and research. Being overwhelmed, they are vulnerable to being exploited by MDH after the birth of a baby. In addition, they’re in a hospital. They’re not thinking about government and may not realize this is a government form. They and the hospital staff may not know the realities and ramifications of consenting. Once they’ve signed the consent, parents may even forget they did it.

After a 9-year battle, we know MDH cannot be trusted to fully inform parents. 

Furthermore, the current MDH consent form is NOT an “informed consent” form as required under the MN genetic privacy law (M.S. 13.386). After the Supreme Court ruling, MDH created it to request storage/research of Baby DNA from babies diagnosed with discovered conditions. But the form never mentions that this is the child’s DNA or that genetic research will take place. The form does NOT mention ANY of the risks to privacy and property with regard to government storage, use, dissemination and research on Baby DNA. These include, but are not limited to:

• government ownership of anything it stores, including the newborn citizen’s DNA. 
• potentially objectionable genetic research.
• possible changes to state law allowing law enforcement to access their child’s DNA. 
• full genomic sequencing of the child’s DNA by the government.
• potential negative impacts on their child in the future.
• sharing of their child’s DNA with outside groups/corporations. 
• the limited likelihood that the parents will remember to tell the child at age 18 that their DNA is owned by the government and may have been analyzed and used for research.
• the possibility that their grown child will not be happy that their DNA was given to outsiders.
• the potential violation of their “right to not know” and their “right to not be known.”
• any and all privacy and personal autonomy risks related to one’s genetic code being on file with the government.

Opposition to HF 3025 (Kahn): 

If “biological specimens” are exempt from the State genetic privacy law’s definition of “genetic information,” everyone’s DNA in tissues, blood, urine, organs, etc. could be stored by government, without consent. MDH argued before the MN Supreme Court that biological specimens (including the newborn screening bloodspots) are not genetic information (see ruling, pp. 10-13). The Court strongly disagreed.    

Last November 16, the MN Supreme Court justices ruled that:

1. MDH never had authority to do anything except collect the baby’s blood for newborn screening.
2. MDH never had authority to store, use, or disseminate newborn blood (Baby DNA). 
3. MDH never had authority to keep genetic test results of any child except those with a condition found during newborn screening.
4. MDH was/is in violation of the 2006 MN genetic privacy act (M.S. 13.386) regarding the storage, use, and dissemination of newborn (genetic) screening test results and Baby DNA. 

Now the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) wants to undo the MN Supreme Court ruling.

Again, here are four specific things I’d like you to ask your legislators to do:

1. LIMIT the Minnesota Department of Health to newborn screening only - just the testing process.
2. PROHIBIT government storage of Baby DNA and government studies or research using Baby DNA.
3. OPPOSE any changes to the MN genetic privacy law, and any attempt to exempt the MN newborn screening law from compliance with the MN genetic privacy law.
4. OPPOSE HF 3025(Kahn) which exempts “biological specimens” from the definition of “genetic information.”

Please email and/or call your legislators today.  To find your legislators, click here.

 

—————————————————————

Obama’s Suing Arizona over No Obama Immigration Policy Had Rocky Day in Court

by John Hinderaker in Immigration, Supreme Court    at PowerLine:

A Bad Day In Court for the Obama Administration

Some years ago, I worked on a big case in Alaska and spent a lot of time there. At that time, the local bar was buzzing about a lawyer who had a really bad day in court: he was kicked to death by a moose in the parking lot of the federal courthouse in Anchorage. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli didn’t have that bad a day today in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Arizona’s immigration law is invalid by virtue of federal pre-emption, but he was kicked about a good bit by the justices.

On Twitter, Byron York asked: “Question for legal types: Is Donald Verrilli bad at his job or just burdened by having to defend the indefensible?” You can read the entire argument here and draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, the problem was not with Verrilli but rather with the quality of the arguments that he was required to make by his client, the Obama administration.

News reports have focused on an exchange in which Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, spoke for the Court in expressing open skepticism about Verrilli’s argument:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Can I get to a different question? I think even I or someone else cut you off when you said there were three reasons why — 2(B). Putting aside your argument that this — that a systematic cooperation is wrong — you can see it’s not selling very well — why don’t you try to come up with something else? Because I, frankly — as the chief has said to you, it’s not that it’s forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don’t have to take the person into custody. So what’s left of your argument?

Justice Sotomayor was commenting here on an extraordinary aspect of the Obama administration’s position, to the effect that it is OK if individual Arizona law enforcement officers decide to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but if the state directs them all to cooperate, it is somehow unconstitutional. The Obama administration literally argued that for a state to engage in “systematic cooperation” with the federal government on immigration is unlawful. We can’t blame Mr. Verrilli for his inability to sell that bizarre argument. We do blame Barack Obama and Eric Holder for trying to assert it.

Of course, what is going on here is that Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has enacted. The essence of its position in the Arizona case is that the federal government has the right to decide not to enforce the law, and if it so decides, then no state has the power, under the Constitution, to do anything that would tend to enforce those federal laws. So if the Obama administration decides that it will gain political advantage by ignoring federal laws against illegal immigration, states like Arizona just have to take the consequences without complaining.

That proposition–the real essence of the Obama administration’s case–is not one that can survive the light of day. Thus, near the end of Verrilli’s argument, Justice Kennedy cut to the chase:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So you’re saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?

GENERAL VERRILLI: No. We have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be — but these — this Court has said over and over again, has recognized that the — the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the — the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations, it involves humanitarian concerns, and it also involves public order and public –

That answer was incoherent, obviously, but not because Verrilli is a fool; rather, because the Obama administration’s position is indefensible. Later, Justice Scalia followed up:

JUSTICE SCALIA: So we have to — we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you’re saying?

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Your Honor, but what — no, Your Honor, I’m not saying that –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Sounded like what you were saying.

So the Obama administration had a tough day in court today, and deservedly so. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in this case delivers President Obama the stinging rebuke that he so richly deserves.

New York Times, Lefties, Question if Family Values Have Value

“ARE FAMILY VALUES OUTDATED”……is the Times title for the article, suggesting that Republicans are rather stupid and myopic about dwelling on an American cultural value that no longer exists.

Are “family values” outdated?

Several passages in the gospels, and a few early Christian writers, suggested that the married state was no worse than celibacy. But this was explicitly ruled a heresy by the Church at the end of the fourth century. Even St. Augustine, whose defense of the “goods” of marriage is much quoted by contemporary marriage promoters, declared that, “it is better for human society itself not to have need of marriage.” Not until 1215 was marriage even made one of the Christian sacraments.

Certainly, the Christian suspicion of marriage had nothing to do with endorsing nonmarital sex or cohabitation, despite the radical (dare we say socialistic?) practice of the apostles, who held “all things in common … and divided them among all, as anyone had need.” Still, it strikes me as a failure of nerve when politicians tell gays and lesbians to give up their dream of marriage and remain celibate without mentioning that this was also the traditional advice to heterosexuals seeking to live a moral life.

Granted, this would be a tough sell on the campaign trail, even with the concession that weak-willed heterosexuals should be allowed to cool their passions within marriage. But didn’t Jesus repeatedly warn his followers that they must be prepared to accept hatred and derision? And when he told his followers to turn the other cheek, surely he didn’t mean bend to the prevailing wind.

Please click below to read the rest of the article…:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/24/are-family-values-outdated?partner=rss&emc=rss

Comment:   The American Left, whether  by  political intent or by default from the its Marxist drives over the past generation  to  force Amerians to be made equal,   has  launched  the most vile political-social movement in America since the rise of the KKK  the feminist-feminazi  movement of  in the late 1960s.    It  has poisoned the American family.  Our children have become wreckage…druggies, sex misfits, ignorant, inarticulate, vulgarieties divorced from the strengths of a successful family.

Americans aging throughout this feminist-feminazi  epidemic  chose self indulgence  and the primitive  to adulthood; ignorance over the traditional search for Truth and devotion  improve the human condition.

Our university studies in the social sciences have come to produce masses of misfits, with staffs overrun by these fascistic hysterics aroused to teach  hate and censor nearly all that is ‘fit’ for human intellectual accumulation.

Yes, it could seem  quite antedeluvian for any group or individual to waste time, money  and effort to refer to  family values in their political efforts,  to persuade  the voter,  whomever might remain who is not corrupted by  the  modern Democrat Party, its Hollywood, it Academia, its Mainstream Media,  who might still be able to read, write and think.

John Podhoretz on Romney rhetoric: “Strong….Accessible…. Positive!”

Mitt ‘sketches’ a threat

The prez had better worry

John Podhoretz   at   the New York Post:

You might recall that Mitt Romney’s aide Eric Fehrnstrom notoriously likened the change from primary battle to general election to shaking an Etch-a-Sketch. The Mitt Romney who showed up last night to deliver the best speech of his life so far might well have been the result of a good shake.

In substance, the speech featured nothing that would have surprised a close observer of the past year, but the presentation was another matter. Romney sounded better, more inspiring and more focused than he ever has, and the speech itself was constructed with rhetoric that was strong, accessible and positive.

Reuters

Looking formidable: Mitt Romney, here with wife Ann last night, is making and refining a strong case for voters to fire Barack Obama.

 

All in all, the Etch-a-Sketch portrait of the campaign strategy reflected in the speech suggests it will be a pretty formidable one.

“Americans,” the de facto Republican nominee said, “are tired of being tired.”

He addressed himself not only to the unemployed but to the American workforce, noting “many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less.”

He mentioned the “single mom who feels heartbroken when she has to explain to her kids that she needs to take a second job,” and “grandparents who can’t afford the gas to visit their grandchildren.” He spoke of “the mom and dad who never thought they’d be on food stamps” and “the small business owner desperately cutting back just to keep the doors open one more month.”

We are “eternal optimists,” he said, “but over the last 3 1/2 years, we have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership.”

He was making a crucial distinction here — a distinction vital to his effort to make the election a referendum on the condition of the United States under Barack Obama, which is the only way he will win.

He was saying the fault lies not with the public’s choice of Barack Obama in 2008 but with Obama’s failure to keep the promises he had made to us all then.

This is exactly the right way to cultivate the doubts those swing voters who pulled the lever for Obama are already experiencing — and to plough that field patiently and methodically over the next 6 1/2 months.

The problem with running a negative campaign against an incumbent is precisely that that the challenger may seem to be putting insulting pressure on some voters to admit they made a mistake.

Romney was saying, by contrast, that the voters did not make a mistake in voting for Obama. No, Obama is the one who made the mistakes — after they entrusted him with the White House. If Americans were doing better, “President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements, and rightly so.”

Romney went on to refine his key ideological case against Obama. “Government is at the center of his vision,” he said. And if that vision is fulfilled, “our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars . . . It erodes freedom. It deadens the entrepreneurial spirit. And it hurts the very people it’s supposed to help.”

Romney then offered a contrasting vision of “an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans . . . We will restore the promise of America only if we restore the principles of freedom and opportunity that made America the greatest nation on earth.”

Obama hasn’t made it easy: “Today, the hill before us is a little steep.” But, Romney added, “We have always been a nation of big steppers.”

Etch-a-Sketch Romney is a candidate Obama has good reason to fear.

MITT ROMNEY: Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.

Obama Does Reflect well the Ugliness of American Culture today, its dishonesty, narcissism, greed

“Ad Slams Obama as the Celebrity President”

from American Crossroads…..found at realclearpolitics videos:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/26/american_crossroads_web_ad_slams_obama_as_the_celebrity_president.html

Dershowitz Puts Principle above Lefty Politics in Zimmerman Case

Dershowitz: Affidavit Submitted By Prosecutor In Zimmerman Case “A Crime

(from realclearpolitics)

“This affidavit submitted by the prosecutor in the Florida case is a crime. It is a crime. If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Alan Dershowitz said on FOX News today.

For video click below:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/25/dershowitz_affidavit_submitted_by_prosecutor_in_zimmerman_case_a_crime.html