Tuesday, January 20, 2015



Take Action: Two justices should recuse themselves from ‘gay’ marriage cases
Monday, January 19, 2015
Dear Supporter,
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving the homosexual marriage issue on the basis that they have conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The justices announced last Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states. The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected by late June.
Justice Kagan performed a September 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk and his partner Patrick Pearsall in Maryland. Justice Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC in August 2013.

Both of these justices' personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court.
Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states "any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage, they have proven themselves to be activists in favor of it!
In order to ensure the Court's integrity and impartiality, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg must recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases.

Congress has an obligation to Americans that members of the Supreme Court are held to the highest standard of integrity. The law demands it and the people deserve it.
Urge your members of Congress to privately and publicly call on Justices Kagan and Ginsburg to properly and legally recuse themselves from cases involving same-sex marriage.

Share This Alert with Your Friends and Family:
Connect With Us:
American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2015 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved

Thursday, January 15, 2015



A Liberal Conundrum

Weekly Update from Dinesh D'Souza

Dear Friends,
In the wake of terror in Paris, we find that Europe is now home to both radical secularism and radical Islam, a toxic combination. This clash of cultures presents a real problem for modern progressives. If a Muslim barber refuses on religious grounds to cut the hair of a lesbian, whose side does a liberal take?

This problem stems from a double standard. Muslims, even radical Muslims that trample on the rights of women and threaten violence against civilization, are a protected class by Western progressives, whereas even nominal Christians have become the object of progressive disdain.
If progressives were to be consistent, they would need to reject Islam as fervently as they reject Christianity, something very few progressives seem to be willing to acknowledge. Bill Maher is a notable exception. In my last appearance on his show, he expressed outrage that liberals are inconsistent in their condemnation of Islam.
The irony of the whole situation, though, is that the liberal, while he can, kowtows to the radical Muslim, but the radical Muslim, if he could, would behead the liberal!
New articles this week indicate that Holder and Obama's justice department may seek an indictment for General Petraeus. I'll let you decide who is the patriot and who is the scoundrel.
Petraeus' real crime was to lead a troop surge in Iraq that worked, frustrating Obama's plans for U.S. withdrawal and defeat. It appears as though Patraeus and the Navy SEAL who shot bin Laden have now joined me on Obama's target list!

On a lighter note, I want to take this opportunity to wish my daughter Danielle the very best—she turned 20 yesterday! How quickly they grow older (and how fortunate that we don't)! Happy Birthday, Danielle!

Have you shared America the movie with your friends and family yet? Join me in the fight to restore America—let's spread the true story of our history. Click here to watch America instantly online or order on DVD.
And remember, for each DVD purchased this year, I will donate an Educational Edition to a school to help the youngest Americans hear the story of our great nation.
Dinesh D'Souza




Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Wednesday, December 17, 2014


Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Mark Cuomo is an American politician who is the 56th and current Governor of New York. A member of the Democratic Party, Cuomo was elected Governor in 2010, holding the same position his father Mario Cuomo... wikipedia.org

NY's big '$witch'
Gov. Cuomo approved a new policy Tuesday night allowing impoverished transgender New Yorkers to bill taxpayers for sex-change surgery.

The administration issued new rules requiring New York’s $55 billion Medicaid program — the government health-insurance program for the needy — to foot the bill for “gender reassignment” operations.

State officials estimate the expanded coverage for transgender operations and services will cost the Medicaid program $6.7 million a year. It is already the costliest in the nation.

There are 353 men and 308 women on the state Medicaid rolls who have been diagnosed with gender-identify disorder.

The state Department of Health estimated that a portion of these individuals will seek either hormone therapy or reassignment surgery.

The cost for sex-change operations — which include genital removal, breast augmentation and mastectomy — ranges from $15,000 to $50,000. That doesn’t include thousands of dollars in therapy and counseling services.

Medicaid will pick up the tab for transgender New Yorkers over 18, although the patients must be at least 21 to get surgery that results in sterilization.

‎“New York state has always been a progressive leader, and ensuring that all New Yorkers — regardless of gender identity — are treated fairly will continue this legacy,” Cuomo said.

“This new regulation will guarantee transgender New Yorkers access to Medicaid-funded care, which is critical to safeguarding the principle of equal treatment,” he said.

“I am proud that the state is taking this step and continuing to lead the fight on transgender rights.”

New York joins ‎ Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, DC, and Maryland in offering medical services to transgender residents.

Republican leaders slammed Cuomo’s move as outrageous.

“New Yorkers pay the highest ‎property taxes in America because our Medicaid costs already are through the roof, ” said Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino.

State Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) predicted the Medicaid costs for sex-change operations will be much higher.

“The state is saying it will cost $67 million over 10 years. It will be over $100 million. It’s an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars,” Golden said.

Cuomo’s measure also will make it easier for foster-care residents in the city’s care who identify as transgender to get sex-reassignment surgery through Medicaid. The city — as well as the state — has been sued for discrimination after refusing to pay for such services.

“We look forward to working with the state in the implementation and rollout of these critical and lifesaving health-care provisions for the transgender community,” City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and the council’s LGBT Caucus said in a joint statement.

Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, said, “We applaud the Cuomo administration for taking this important step.”

For more on the New York Post and to download our apps, visit NYPost.com

Sunday, December 14, 2014



When 'justice' trumps accuracy, journalism loses

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
December 14, 2014

JOURNALISTS, SAYS Jorge Ramos, shouldn't make a fetish of accuracy and impartiality.
Univision's star anchor, Jorge Ramos, has "nothing against objectivity," but he argues that journalists should use their profession "as a weapon for a higher purpose."
Speaking last month at the International Press Freedom Awards, Univision's influential news anchor told his audience that while he has "nothing against objectivity," journalism is meant to be wielded as "a weapon for a higher purpose: justice." To be sure, he said, it is important to get the facts right — five deaths should be reported as five, not six or seven. But "the best of journalism happens when we, purposely, stop pretending that we are neutral and recognize that we have a moral obligation to tell truth to power."
As it happens, Ramos delivered those remarks soon after the publication of Sabrina Erdely's 9,000-word story in Rolling Stone vividly describing the alleged gang rape of a freshman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity party. Erdely had reportedly spent months researching the story, and its explosive impact was — at first — everything a tell-truth-to-power journalist could have wished: national attention, public outrage, campus protests, suspension of UVA's fraternities, and a new "zero-tolerance" policy on sexual assault.

But Rolling Stone's blockbuster has imploded, undone by independent reporting at The Washington Post that found glaring contradictions and irregularities with the story, and egregious failures in the way it was written and edited. Erdely, it turns out, had taken Jackie's horrific accusations on faith, never contacting the alleged rapists for a comment or response. In a rueful "Note to Our Readers," managing editor Will Dana writes: "[W]e have come to the conclusion … that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story."

To a layman, that "conclusion" might seem so excruciatingly self-evident that Rolling Stone's debacle can only be explained as gross negligence, or a reckless disregard for the truth. But much of the journalistic priesthood holds to a different standard, one that elevates the higher truth of an overarching "narrative" — in this case, that a brutal and callous "rape culture" pervades American college campuses — above the mundane details of fact. Erdely had set out in search of a grim sexual-assault story, and settled on Jackie's account of being savaged by five men (or was it seven?) at a fraternity bash was just the vehicle she'd been looking for. Why get tangled in conflicting particulars?
"Maybe [Erdely] was too credulous," suggests longtime media critic Howard Kurtz in a piece on Rolling Stone's journalistic train wreck. "Along with her editors."

Or maybe this is what happens when newsrooms and journalism schools decide, like Jorge Ramos, that although they have "nothing against objectivity," their real aspiration is to use journalism "as a weapon for a higher purpose." Somehow it didn't come as a shock to learn that when Dana was invited to lecture at Middlebury College in 2006, his speech was titled: "A Defense of Biased Reporting."


Even after the UVA story began to collapse, voices were raised in defense of the narrative over mere fact.
"This is not to say that it does not matter whether or not Jackie's story is accurate," Julia Horowitz, an assistant managing editor at the University of Virginia's student newspaper, wrote in Politico. But "to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake."

Well, if the "narrative" is what matters most, checking the facts too closely can indeed be a huge mistake. Because facts, those stubborn things, have a tendency to undermine cherished narratives — particularly narratives grounded in emotionalism, memory, or ideology.
Rolling Stone's article on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia — meant to illustrate the "rape culture" that supposedly pervades college campuses — turned out to be an egregious journalistic debacle.
It's a temptation to which journalists have always been susceptible. In the 1930s, to mention one notorious example, Walter Duranty recycled Soviet propaganda, assuring his New York Times readers that no mass murders were occurring under Stalin's humane and enlightened rule. Duranty is reviled today. But the willingness to subordinate a passion for accuracy to a supposedly higher passion for "justice" (or "equality" or "fairness" or "diversity" or "peace" or "the environment") persists.

Has the time come to give up on the ideal of objective, unbiased journalism? Would media bias openly acknowledged be an improvement over news media that only pretend not to take sides?

This much is clear: The public isn't deceived. Trust in the media has been drifting downward for years. According to Gallup, Americans' confidence that news is being reported "fully, accurately, and fairly" reached an all-time low this year. Would you be astonished to see that number sink even further next year? Me neither.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --