Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Federal Judge Decides Life Begins at Conception: Planned Parenthood’s Request Denied

 - Christian Newswire  Monday, June 27, 2011
CHICAGO,—This past Friday, Planned Parenthood’s request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm” was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, says this is a victory for Life: “We are pleased that Judge Pratt has upheld the concept that life begins at conception.”
Last month, the Thomas More Society filed a “friend of the Court” brief (available here) for Indiana legislators in defense of Indiana’s law that denied state funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and mandated that abortion providers inform women that “human physical life” begins with fertilization. Indiana is the first state to attempt to defund abortion providers.
“While this is a significant partial victory for Life, we will press on to ensure that the full law will go into effect to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana,” Brejcha said. “We stand ready to defend Life in other states as they plan to defund Planned Parenthood and require doctors to tell women that life begins at conception.”
For more information or comments, please contact Tom Ciesielka at 312-422-1333 or

About the Thomas More Society

Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, traditional family values and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of Thomas More Society, please visit

Flooded Ft Calhoun Nuclear Plant: 4 emergency failures, 2 electric Continue reading on Flooded Ft Calhoun Nuclear Plant: 4 emergency failures, 2 electric - National Human Rights |

Nuclear plant electric power failure, humanitarian crisis spreading
As an astounding 195,000 cubic feet of water per second raged past Omaha today, the public was told that the nuclear plant across the flooding river from the city, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, poses no danger since it is closed albeit flooded and as of today, operating on emergency electricity, the fourth emergency there in recent days, the second power failure emergency. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) confirmed Sunday that the plant requires electricity to avoid melting the core, even though the plant is "closed."

America's humanitarian disaster is now widespread with twenty states impacted by floods, approximately 48 major active wildfires burning across the United States mainly in the South and Southwest, 1438658 acres scorching, thousands of people displaced and thousands who have lost their homes. The worst yet to come according to
"Randy Nelson and his wife just bought a camper, knowing their house is flooded. They currently are living in a shopping center parking lot, powerless to do anything but wait.
"He said the hardest part is 'patience ... not knowing where you are going to live. It's tough.'" (ABC)
As tragic as human losing a home to fire or flood is, the ultimate pending disaster might be that which looms at Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station.

An event report foreshadowed Sunday's emergency involving loss of electricity after the collapse of the nuclear station's aqua-derm that had been placed around the plant to hold the floodwaters out of the plant, as highlighted by Enenews. On June 16, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission's event report included: Ft. Calhoun nuke plant: “Potential flooding issue in the Intake Structure.”

The report stated, “There is one penetration of concern” that could impact water pumps.
"The auxiliary and containment buildings surrounded by water are protected by design to a floodwater level of 1,014 mean sea level," reported Wall Street Journal Sunday. "Missouri River levels aren't expected to exceed 1,008 feet."

Back-up generators are reportedly being used as of Sunday since flooding knocked out the atomic energy plant's electricity around 1am Sunday morning.  Are they working? Answering that, ABC reported today, "This will sound familiar — Backup generators are working to cool nuclear materials."

 An Associated Press article reporting on the collapse of the flood wall protecting Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant mentions, "The berm's collapse didn't affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling, but the power supply was cut after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said."
"Emergency generators powered the plant Sunday while workers tried to restore power."

Beyond Nuclear highlighted Sunday, "If the emergency diesel generators were also to fail (as by being submerged under flood waters), the final line of defense, in terms of running vital reactor cooling systems, would be the direct current (DC) emergency batteries."
Such batteries at most U.S. atomic reactors only have 4 hours of life according to Beyond Nuclear. (Emphasis added)

Federal government is “so concerned” about Ft. Calhoun, the NRC chairman is in Nebraska for a two-day assessment, due to do a fly-over Fort Calhoun Monday.

How safe is the public?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission audits only about 5 percent of activities at nuclear plants each year according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Two-thrids of US Nuclear Plants have been leaking radiation and Ft. Calhoun has been among the nation's 14 most dangerous nuclear plants before it was flooded and operating with emergency electricity according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter. (See Special Report: "Nuclear flood threat: 1100 troops, 25,000 homes flooded, NRC chief onsite" (vid)," Dupré, D. June 25, 2011 cited in "Fort Calhoun Nuclear Flood Emergency: Hours from core damage")

A Three-Mile Island survivor stated on Sunday that what is happening at Fort Calhoun Station is like deja-vu. The public is being told there is no nuclear danger, despite the plant's four failures of late: the recent fire, the mechanical failure helicopter crash, the electricity failing (again), and the "aqua-dam" collapse.

No danger? "I love it," stated the Three-Mile Island survivor, now retired. "'There is no danger' is exactly what they said about Three Mile Island!"

Perhaps there is one major difference between Three Mile Island and Fort Calhoun. Locals in the Fort Calhoun area who know workers at the plant are attributing the collapsed berm to a "man-made puncture" according to reports to Dupré.

The Omaha World-Herald reports that Omaha Public Power District admits the anti-flood water filled rubber berm (the "Aqua-dam") failed "due to on-site activities." It is unclear what type of utility "activities" caused the berm's "accidental failure."

The good news?
The river in Minot, N.D., peaked two feet lower than expected. It is, however, nearly 12 feet above flood stage and it is expected to stay near that level for days according to ABC. Flooding is predicted through August.

Dave Van Der Kamp, with the Nebraska Public Power District stated late Sunday, "We built the plant up high enough based on history, based on the flooding in the past. If the flood would rise for some reason above that level, we have taken the precautions, again, per our procediures to sandbag the important equipment for the reactors." (CNN

According to Van Der Kamp, chances of floodwater getting into the building where the core is kept are almost zero.

Reporting on the distressed Fort Calhoun plant and its latest emergencies in the flood, ABC reported, "There isn't nearly as much water there as there was after the tsunami in Japan."

By Deborah Dupre

Human Rights Examiner Deborah Dupre' holds American and Australian science and education graduate degrees plus thirty years human rights, environmental and peace...

Sunday, June 26, 2011

10 Fundamentals That Conservatives Running for Office Must Understand

By John W. Lillpop

 Government exists, at the will of the people, to provide a common defense against enemies of America, both foreign and domestic. We the people neither need, nor want, government bureaucrats telling us what to eat, how to raise children, what light bulbs to use, or other matters best left in the hands of the family.

 America was founded by men and women strong in the Christian faith. Denying our religious heritage for the purpose of politically-correct inclusion is morally wrong.

 Government has neither the resources nor the expertise to provide health care, to educate our youth, or to create jobs. In these ,as well as in most areas of life, government serves we the people best by getting out of the way!

 Racism is a wretched evil, made all the more damaging by its devastating impact on the human spirit. On the other hand, alleging racism, where it does not exist, for political, social, or economic gain is just as evil.

 Using the tax code to punish the accomplished in order to reward the less talented and bone idle is un-American and immoral. Taxes depress economic growth and the creation of jobs for American citizens and should always be challenged and opposed.

 Every dollar paid in taxes is one less dollar available to private enterprise for job creation.

 The use of armed military force should be limited to situations involving a vital national interest of the United States. No president, regardless of how brilliant, should make war(or Kinetic whatever) without the consent of Congress.

 Illegal immigration is a serious breach of borders and rule of law which harms America’s economy, employment, education, culture, and homeland security, and which costs American taxpayers more than $110 billion a year. Exploiting this issue as a means for growing the Democrat Party base rather than enforcing the rule of law to protect American citizens is un-American and immoral.

 There is nothing racist about defending American sovereignty, language and culture. On the other hand, racism is abundant when foreigners come here illegally and refuse to learn English and refuse to assimilate into American society.

 Character, integrity, and fidelity do matter! Without these qualities, no politician can possibly serve we the people.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

To go to the original post, click on the title of this post, thanks to Mr. John W. Lillpop

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

BREAKING The Smoking Gun => Occidental States: Obama’s Name Is Barry Soetoro, Religion Is Islam, And He’s An Indonesian!

Found at click title to go to original post

Registration transcript states ~ Name: Barry Soetoro – Religion: Islam – Nationality: Indonesian
The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid. 

Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.  Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.  To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.
Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.

The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.
On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.

Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.
There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Newspaper print of LA Times – Occidental recalls ‘Barry’ Obama
Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro.
An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen.
A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

Denies Using Any Other Name To State Bar!
A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.

While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?
If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
Kenyan-Born Obama, All Set For 2004 US Senate ~ Christians, All Set To Die.
Obama Born Again? 2 1/2 Years Of Deception & A $2.8 Million Law Tab In Blocking Eligibility Lawsuits! But Wait, Why Did Barry Lie On His 2004 Senate Papers?

U.S. Code


§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or
(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or
(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or
(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama.   Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.

Rebuttal found here

Update on how the government is NOT CO-OPERATING with law suit.

Sheriff Asks: Why 28,000 Troops in South Korea, Yet Just 1,200 at U.S.-Mexico Border?

This from  To go to the original post, click the title.

 - John Lillpop  Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu was recently named 2011 National Sheriff of the Year by the National Sheriff’s Association.

Clearly, this man is an expert in law enforcement and border security. Sheriff Babeu demonstrated his intelligence and expertise when he challenged the completely inadequate efforts by the Obama administration to secure the U.S.-Mexico borders.

As reported:
“Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu said the Obama administration’s decision to extend the deployment of 1,200 U.S. National Guard troops along the U.S. border with Mexico until Sept. 30 is “pandering” and that those numbers “fall far short” of what military power is needed to keep the country safe.
Babeu noted, for comparison, the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea to help defend it against North Korean aggression; U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea for 58 years.
Babeu is the sheriff of Pinal County in southern Arizona and is on the frontlines against illegal immigration, human traffickers, drug smugglers, and potential terrorists.
“What are we doing?” Babeu told by telephone. “We need 6,000 armed soldiers on our border to protect America. Homeland Security starts at home.” He was talking about the National Guard.
Babeu said that only 520 guardsmen are deployed in Arizona, a state with a 276-mile border with Mexico and the state that has, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the greatest influx of illegal aliens. In 2010, approximately 212,000 illegal aliens were seized in the Tucson sector of Arizona – or 47 percent of all illegal aliens taken into custody.
“The gravest national security risk that we face is right here with the insecure border with Mexico,” Babeu said. “Right from the beginning, these 1,200 [National Guard] soldiers fall far short from what’s really, truly needed to achieve a secure border.”
Well said, Sheriff.
Of course the honest answer is that Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano really do not want to prevent invasions across our border because they see the illegal aliens as future Democrats.
Hats off to another Arizona sheriff who is standing up and articulating the treason that is being committed by the Obama administration!

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Still No Revival? Jack Chick

Please go here:
And see the power point presentations for Biblical Christianity pages 1&2.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Australian Media Bigfoot Greg Sheridan Declares Against Muslim Immigration—Where Are U.S. Counterparts?

Found at

April 09, 2011
H/T to the ever -fruitful blog Refugee Resettlement Watch for alerting me to a seminal Australian article which, with the North African fiasco now brewing, is liable to be all too relevant to America: How I lost faith in multiculturalism, by Greg Sheridan, The Australian April 02 2011.

Sheridan, long-time foreign editor of The Australian (“...the biggest-selling national newspaper”Wikipedia 04/09/11) is a Bigfoot in his country’s media scene. Professionally, he has broadly been an Australian-version Invade-the-World/Invite-the world neoconservative, with the special local twist of advocating Asian rather than European involvement for his country—including immigrant sourcing. (Hostility to the British link is a tedious tradition amongst Irish-Australians.)

Now he has developed a new opinion: no Muslim immigration. Also, more scepticism about refugees.
It takes Sheridan almost 4,600 words to say this! Partly because it is clearly a painful retraction:
“...once I wholeheartedly supported multiculturalism, I now think it's a failure and the word should be abandoned”.

And partly, no doubt, because Australia’s contemptible anti-free speech laws have made racial issues dangerous to discuss. Remember Professor Andrew Fraser? Another Australian journalist, Andrew Bolt, is currently being prosecuted for pointing out that a group of light-skinned Aborigines are light-skinned. [Plaintiffs called themselves 'white Aborigines', says QC, by Norrie Ross, Melbourne Herald Sun. April 02, 2011]

But Sheridan does eventually say it:
 “ is the real world that has changed my views.
“In particular it is four real-world experiences: watching the debate unfold about the illegal immigrants who come to Australia by boat; a month in Europe researching and writing about immigration issues; 30 years reporting on political Islam in Southeast Asia and the Middle East; and, above all, living for nearly 15 years next door to Lakemba in Sydney's southwest, the most Muslim suburb in Australia.”

Sheridan really dislikes Islam
“...the only people who don't think there is a problem with Islam are those who live on some other planet. The reputation of Islam in the West is not poor because of prejudiced Western Islamophobia, still less because Western governments conduct some kind of anti-Islamic propaganda.
“Instead, it is the behaviour of people claiming the justification of Islam for their actions that affects the reputation of Islam.”

This is an opinion which distresses him
“All my life I have been, intellectually and as a matter of personal experience, strongly supportive of a big and completely racially non-discriminatory immigration program”.

But, to his credit, he accepts that facts are facts:
“...the evidence of my own eyes...convinced me that many North Africans were not going to Europe to embrace European values but to continue their North African life, with its values, at a European living standard and at the expense of the European taxpayer.”

Particularly facts appearing in his own former neighbourhood
“ the nearly 15 years we lived there the suburb changed, and much for the worse.
“Three dynamics interacted in a noxious fashion: the growth of a macho, misogynist culture among young men that often found expression in extremely violent crime; a pervasive atmosphere of anti-social behaviour in the streets; and the simultaneous growth of Islamist extremism and jihadi culture...
“A senior policeman from nearby Bankstown once told me that policing in the Bankstown area was unlike working anywhere else in Australia, and he was amazed how much violent crime went unreported by the media.
“Does Islam itself have a role in these problems? The answer is complex and nuanced but it must be a qualified, and deeply reluctant, yes.”

Sheridan’s conclusions:
“The inflow of illegal immigrants by boat in the north, almost all Muslim, mostly unskilled, should be stopped.
“Within the formal refugee and humanitarian allocation of 13,500 places a year, a legitimate stress should be placed on need but also on the ability to integrate into Australian society.
“And, finally, we simply should not place immigration officers in the countries with the greatest traditions of radicalism.”

(A.K.A Muslim countries. Australia still actively recruits immigrants.)
There is sadly a pattern of prominent journalists seeing the light on immigration and then running for cover when they realise how dangerous the subject is. The cases of former London Times writer Anthony Browne, and more recently Matt Taibbi come to mind. Sheridan positions himself as still being an immigration enthusiast generally. Maybe that will protect him.

But the article is well worth reading. And at least it is a start.

When can we expect to see similar American MSM icons—like Thomas Friedman or Al Hunt—be as responsible?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...